UC-NRLF 


$B    5fi7    7flD 


for  International  Peace 


DIVISION  OF  INTERCOURSE  AND  EDUCATION 

Publication  No.  17 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 


!ti>>Trtn(iijr  n  iVti 'iiif  Mia 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/americanforeignpOOcarnrich 


Ammh  Mhm\\^m 


UwVnrflirjr  rf  CMani^ 


Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace 

DIVISION  OF  INTERCOURSE  AND  EDUCATION 

Publication  No.  17  / 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 


Based  upon 

Statements  of  Presidents  and  Secretaries  of  State  of  the  United  States 

and  of  Publicists  of  the  American  Republics 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION  BY 

NICHOLAS  MURRAY  BUTLER 
SECOND  EDITION 


WASHINGTON,  D,  C. 

1920 


COPYRIGHT  1920 

BY  THE 

CARNEGIE    ENDOWMENT    FOR    INTERNATIONAL    PEACE 

2  Jackson  Place 

Washington,  D.  C. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  public  discussions  which  preceded  and  attended  the  entry  of  the  United 
States  into  the  great  war  and,  more  particularly,  the  discussions  in  the  Senate 
and  in  the  public  press  concerning  the  terms  and  conditions  of  peace,  have  served 
to  awaken  new  and  widespread  interest  in  matters  of  foreign  policy.  There  have 
been  frequent  clashes  of  opinion  as  to  what  are  the  principles  and  traditions  of 
American  foreign  policy.  As  a  result  many  persons  find  themselves  confused 
and  uncertain  in  regard  to  those  principles  and  purposes  which  have  been  an- 
nounced and  accepted  as  controlling  the  administration  of  the  foreign  policy 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

The  present  Publication  has  been  planned  by  the  Division  of  Intercourse 
and  Education  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  a  clear  and  obvious  need  for  exact 
information.  There  are  here  brought  together  those  official  statements  by  suc- 
cessive Presidents  and  Secretaries  of  State  which,  having  been  formally  or 
tacitly  accepted  by  the  American  people,  do  in  effect  constitute  the  foundation 
of  American  foreign  policy. 

As  Mr.  Root  has  pointed  out,  not  everything  said  or  written  by  Secretaries 
of  State  or  even  by  Presidents,  constitutes  a  national  policy.  It  is  the  substance  of 
the  thing  to  which  the  nation  holds  which  constitutes  its  fK>licy.  The  declarations 
contained  in  this  Publication  constitute  the  substance  of  the  thing  to  which  the 
American  nation  holds.  They  are  the  classic  declarations  of  policy  which,  taken 
together,  present  a  record  of  which  the  American  people  may  well  be  proud. 

It  is  quite  customary  to  overlook  or  to  minimize  the  important  constructive 
work  of  the  two  Hague  Conferences  of  1899  and  1907  and  the  important  part 
played  therein  by  the  United  States.  It  is  true  that  the  great  war  appeared  to 
brush  rudely  aside  the  definite  assurances  and  the  high  hopes  which  were  the 
result  of  those  two  conferences ;  but  as  that  war  itself  recedes  into  the  distance 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  work  of  the  Hague  Conferences  remains  as  the  surest 
foundation  for  any  new  plan  of  international  cooperation  that  is  really  prac- 
ticable. A  re-study  by  Americans  of  the  work  of  the  two  Hague  Conferences  is 
vitally  important,  since  it  is  from  that  work  that  the  new  task  of  construction 
must  start. 

Fortunately,  in  the  Recommendations  of  Habana  concerning  international 
organization,  adopted  by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law  after  the 
great  war  had  been  in  progress  more  than  two  and  a  half  years,  there  is  pro-i 
vided  a  platform  upon  which  all  American  governments  and  peoples  can  stand. 
Representative  jurists  from  many  different  American  republics  united  in  for- 
mulating and  in  publishing  this  impressive  Declaration.  It  may  now  be  offered  to 
the  peoples  of  Europe  and  of  Asia  as  America's  positive  contribution  tO'  the  solu- 
tion of  the  problem  of  providing  a  form  of  international  cooperation  which  will 
avoid  the  creation  of  a  super-government  and  rest  international  cooperation  upon 
respect  and  reverence  for  law.  This  is  the  path  of  progress  to  which  the  tradi- 
tions of  American  foreign  policy  point  and  this  is  the  path  upon  which  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  may  well  invite  other  nations  speedily  to  enter. 

The  Division  of  Intercourse  and  Education  is  indebted  for  the  compilation 
of  the  material  included  in  this  publication  to  the  Director  of  the  Division  of 
International  Law,  Mr.  James  Brown  Scott,  whose  luminous  commentary  on  the 
Recommendations  of  Habana  (pages  105-119),  is  a  marked  addition  to  the  value 
of  the  present  Publication. 

Nicholas  Murray  Butler, 

Acting  Director. 
April  T5,  1920. 


(15 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.     George  Washington,  President  of  the  United  States,  1789-1797.— Extract  from 

the  Farewell  Address,  September  17,  1796 •  • 1 

Foreign  policy  discussed — Enjoins  good  faith  and  justice  towards  all 
nations — Passionate  attachments  to  other  nations  should  be  excluded — 
Advises  as  little  political  connection  as  possible  with  foreign  nations — 
Europe's  primary  interests  have  only  remote  relation  to  ours — Advantages 
of  our  situation — The  period  is  not  far  off  when  we  may  defy  material 
injury  from  external  annoyance,  when  we  may  choose  peace  or  war  as  our 
interest  guided  by  justice  may  counsel. 

11.  Thomas  Jefferson,  President  of  the  United  States,  1801-1809.— Extract  from  the 

First   Inaugural    Address,    March   4,    1801 •  •       4 

States  the  essential  principles  of  our  Government  and  therein  counsels 
peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship  with  all  nations,  entangling  alliances 
with  none. 

III.  James  Monroe,  President  of  the  United  States,  1817-1825. — Extracts  from  the 

Seventh  Annual  Message,  December  2,  1823 •  • 5 

American  continents  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for 
future  colonization  by  any  European  Powers — Extension  of  political  system 
of  Europe  to  any  portion  of  Western  Hemisphere  should  be  considered  as 
dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety — Existing  coloriies  not  to  be  inter- 
fered with. 

IV.  James  K.  Polk,  President  of  the  United  States,   1845-1849.— Extract  from  the 

First  Annual  Message,  December  2,  1845 7 

People  of  this  continent  alone  have  right  to  decide  their  own  destiny — 
Union  of  independent  States  on  this  continent  not  a  matter  for  European 
interposition  on  ground  of  "balance  of  power." 

V.  James  K.  Polk,  President  of  the  United  States. — Special  Message  to  the  Senate 

and  House  of  Representatives,  April  29,   1848 9 

The  United  States  could  not  consent  to  a  transfer  of  dominion  and 
sovereignty  over  Yucatan  either  to  Spain,  Great  Britain  or  any  other 
European  power. 

VI.  James  Buchanan,  President  of  the  United  States,  1857-1861. — Extract  from  the 

Second    Annual    Message,    December    6,    1858 12 

Relations  with  Mexico — Monroe  Doctrine  reasserted — The  geographical 
situation  of  Mexico  renders  its  progress  and  prosperity  of  particular  inter 
est  to  the  United  States  and  requires  the  integrity  of  its  territory  to  be 
protected. 

VII.  Ulysses    S.    Grant,    President  of   the   United    States,    1869-1877.— Extract   from 

Special  Message  to  the  Senate,  May  31,  1870 13 

Voluntary  application  of  the  Dominican  Republic  for  annexation  to  the 
United  States— The  Monroe  Doctrine  adhered  to  by  all  political  parties- 
Hereafter  no  territory  on  this  continent  shall  be  regarded  as  subject  of 
transfer-  to  any  European  Power. 

VIII.  James  G.  Blaine.   Secretary  of   State  of  the   United   States.   1881,   1889-1892.— 

Call  for  the  First  International  American  Conference,  November  29,  1881 . .     14 

Address  of  Welcome  to  the   Conference,   October  2,   1889 17 

Closing  Address,  April  19,  1890 ',\     19 

Governments  of  the  American  nations  participate  in  a  congress  held 
"for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  discussing  the  methods  of  preventing 
war  between  the  nations  of  America"— Dedication  of  the  two  American 
continents  to  peace  and  to  the  prosperity  that  has  peace  for  its  foundation. 


M511  ri«n 


V 


V 


vi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

IX.  Grover   Cleveland,   President  of   the  United   States,   1885-1889,    1893-1897.— Ex- 
tract from  the  Third  Annual  Message,  December  2,   1895 21 

Boundary  dispute  between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana  a  proper  sub- 
ject in  its  entirety  for  friendly  and  impartial  arbitration — The  established 
policy  of  this  Government  firmly  opposed  to  a  forcible  increase  by  any 
European  Power  of  its  territorial  possessions  on  this  continent. 

X.  John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  UnitedStates,  1898-1905. — Memorandum  to 

the   Imperial   German   Embassy,   December    16,    1901 • 22 

Recites  the  position  of  the  United  States  on  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as 
expressed  by  the  President  in  his  annul  message — Upon  the  assurances  of 
the  German  Government  that  no  acquisition  of  territory  is  conternplated,  the 
President  does  not  consider  himself  called  upon  to  enter  into  a  considera- 
tion of  the  difficulty  of  Germany  with  Venezuela. 

XL  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of  the  United   Sttes,   1901-1909.— Extract   from 

the   Fourth  Annual  Message,   December  6,   1904 23 

Goodwill  of  the  United  States  towards  other  nations  of  the  Western 
Hemisphere — Obligations  of  the  former  under  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as 
regards  exercise  of  an  internationl  police  power — Responsibility  of  every 
nation  to  make  good  use  of  its  independence. 

XII.  Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of  the  United  States. — Extracts  from  Special  Mes- 
sage to  the  Senate,  February  15,  1905,  transmitting  a  proctocol  of  an  agree- 
ment between  the  United  States  and  the  Dominican  Republic  providing 
for  the  collection  and  disbursement  by  the  United  States  of  the  customs 

revenues  of  the  Dominican  Republic  signed  on  February  7,  1905 24 

Relations  with  the  Dominican  Republic — Responsibilities  connected  with 
the  Monroe  Doctrine — Intervention  in  support  of  contractual  claims — Inter- 
national duty  under  Monroe  Doctrine  to  be  performed  in  the  interest  of  all 
nations,  and  with  strict  justice  toward  all. 

XIII.  Elihu   Root,   Secretary  of   State,   1905-1909,   United  States   Senator   from   New 

York,    1909-1915.— The   Real   Monroe  Doctrine 29 

Theory  and  practice  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  Monroe 
Doctrine — Instances  of  its  application — Necessity  of  Monroe  Doctrine 
shown  to  protect  the  United   States. 

XIV.  The  First  Hague  Peace  Conference,  1899:  American  Instructions  and  Report..     43 

Instructions  to  Andrew  D.  White,   Seth  Low,   Sanford  Newel,  Alfred  T, 
Mahan    and    William    Crozier,    the    American    Delegates    to    the    Hague 

Conference  of  1899 44 

Annex    A. — Historical    Resume 47 

Annex  B.— Plan  for  an  International  Tribunal 51 

Report  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  Delegates  to  the  First  Hague  Con- 
ference      53 

Purpose  of  the  Conference  "to  secure  the  benefits  of  a  real  and  durable 
peace" — Program:  limitation  of  armaments;  non-employment  of  certain  de- 
structive agents;  humane  succor;  good  offices,  mediation  and  arbitration- 
Resume  of  American  propositions  for  amicable  and  final  adjustment  of 
international  disputes — ^American  plan  for  an  international  tribunal — Codi- 
fication of  laws  of  warfare— Participation  of  all  American  Republics— 
The  Monroe  Doctrine— Results  of  the  Conference. 

XV.  Reservation  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Convention  for  the  Pacific 

Settlement  of  International  disputes,    1899 63 

XVI.  The  Second  Hague  Peace  Conference,  1907 :  American  Instructions  and  Report. 
Instructions  to  Joseph   H.   Choate,   Horace    Porter,   Uriah   M.    Rose,    David 
Jayne  Hill,  George  B.  Davis,  Charles  S.  Sperry  and  William  I.  Buchanan, 
the  American  Delegates  to  the  Hague  Conference  of  1907 63 


CONTENTS  vii 

PAGE 

Report  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  Delegates  of  the  United  States  to 

the  Second  Hague  Conference    •  • 76 

Program — Peaceful  settlement  of  international  disputes — Codification 
of  laws  of  warfare— Neutral  rights  and  duties — Private  property  at  sea- 
Future  conferences — Monroe  Doctrine — Limitation  of  armaments — Arbitra- 
tion— Participation  of  Latin  America — (Results  of  the  Conference. 

XVIL  The  Recommendations  of  'Habana  Concerning  International  Organization, 
Adopted  by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law  at  its  Second  Ses- 
sion in  the  City  of  Habana,  January  23,  1917 •  • 106 

Recommendations  to  the  effect  that  the  Third  Hague  Conference  should 
be  convoked,  the  work  of  the  Second  Conference  carried  on  and  perfected — 
Proposals  by  which  this  may  be  accomplished. 

XVIII.  Commentary  on  the  Recommendations  of  Habana  Concerning  International 
Organization,  adopted  January  23,  1917. — By  James  Brown  Scott,  Director 
of  the  Division  of  International  Law,  Carnegie  Endowment  for  Inter- 
national  Peace    •  • 108 

Declaration  of  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations,  Adopted  by  the  American 

Institute  of  International  Law  on  January  6,  1916. •  • 115 

The  principles  of  justice  stated  which  obtain  between  individuals  and 
should  govern  independent  and  equal  States  in  their  mutual  relations. 

XIX.  Provision   of   Law   declaring  the   International   Policy  of   the    United    States. — 

Enacted  by  the  Sixty-fourth  Congress,  August  29,   1916 123 


George  Washington,  President  of  the  United  States,  1789-1797 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  FAREWELL  ADDRESS^ 
September  17,  1796 

Observe  good  faith  and  justice  toward  all  nations.  Cultivate  peace  and  har- 
mony with  all.  Religion  and  morality  enjoin  this  conduct.  And  can  it  be  that 
good  policy  does  not  equally  enjoin  it?  It  will  be  worthy  of  a  free,  enlightened, 
and  at  no  distant  period  a  great  nation  to  give  to  mankind  the  magnanimous  and 
too  novel  example  of  a  people  always  guided  by  an  exalted  justice  and  benevolence. 
Who  can  doubt  that  in  the  course  of  time  and  things  the  fruits  of  such  a  plan 
would  richly  repay  any  temporary  advantages  which  might  be  lost  by  a  steady 
adherence  to  it?  Can  it  be  that  Providence  has  not  connected  the  permanent 
felicity  of  a  nation  with  its  virtue?  The  experiment,  at  least,  is  recommended  by 
every  sentiment  which  ennobles  human  nature.  Alas !  is  it  rendered  impossible  by 
its  vices? 

In  the  execution  of  such  a  plan  nothing  is  more  essential  than  that  permanent, 
inveterate  antipathies  against  particular  nations  and  passionate  attachments  for 
others  should  be  excluded,  and  that  in  place  of  them  just  and  amicable  feelings 
toward  all  should  be  cultivated.  The  nation  which  indulges  toward  another  an 
habitual  hatred  or  an  habitual  fondness  is  in  some  degree  a  slave.  It  is  a  slave  to 
its  animosity  or  to  its  affection,  either  of  which  is  sufficient  to  lead  it  astray  from 
its  duty  and  its  interest.  Antipathy  in  one  nation  against  another  disposes  each 
more  readily  to  offer  insult  and  injury,  to  lay  hold  of  slight  causes  of  umbrage, 
and  to  be  haughty  and  intractable  when  accidental  or  trifling  occasions  of  dispute 
occur. 

Hence  frequent  colhsions,  obstinate,  envenomed,  and  bloody  contests.  The 
nation  prompted  by  ill-will  and  resentment  sometimes  impels  to  war  the  Govern- 
ment contrary  to  the  best  calculations  of  policy.  The  Government  sometimes  par- 
ticipates in  the  national  propensity,  and  adopts  through  passion  what  reason  would 
reject.  At  other  times  it  makes  the  animosity  of  the  nation  subservient  to  projects 
of  hostility,  instigated  by  pride,  ambition,  and  other  sinister  and  pernicious  mo- 
tives. The  peace  often,  sometimes  perhaps  the  liberty,  of  nations  has  been  the 
victim. 

So,  likewise,  a  passionate  attachment  of  one  nation  for  another  produces  a 
variety  of  evils.    Sympathy  for  the  favorite  nation,  facilitating  the  illusion  of  an 


^  Richardson,  James  D.,  A  Compilation  of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents 
1789-1897  (Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1896-1899),  vol.  1,  pp.  221-223. 


2  AMERICAN  FOREIGN   POLICY 

imaginary  common  interest  in  cases  where  no  real  common  interest  exists,  and 
infusing  into  one  the  enmities  of  the  other,  betrays  the  former  into  a  participation 
in  the  quarrels  and  wars  of  the  latter  without  adequate  inducement  or  justification. 
It  leads  also  to  concessions  to  the  favorite  nation  of  privileges  denied  to  others, 
which  is  apt  doubly  to  injure  the  nation  making  the  concessions  by  unnecessarily 
parting  with  what  ought  to  have  been  retained,  and  by  exciting  jealousy,  ill  will, 
and  a  disposition  to  retaliate  in  the  parties  from  whom  equal  privileges  are  with- 
held ;  and  it  gives  to  ambitious,  corrupted,  or  deluded  citizens  (who  devote  them- 
selves to  the  favorite  nation)  faciHty  to  betray  or  sacrifice  the  interests  of  their 
own  country  without  odium,  sometimes  even  with  popularity,  gilding  with  the 
appearances  of  a  virtuous  sense  of  obligation,  a  commendable  deference  for 
public  opinion,  or  a  laudable  zeal  for  public  good  the  base  or  foolish  compliances 
of  ambition,  corruption,  or  infatuation. 

As  avenues  to  foreign  influence  in  innumerable  ways,  such  attachments  are 
particularly  alarming  to  the  truly  enlightened  and,  independent  patriot.  How 
many  opportunities  do  they  afford  to  tamper  with  domestic  factions,  to  practice 
the  arts  of  seduction,  to  mislead  public  opinion,  to  influence  or  awe  the  public 
councils !  Such  an  attachment  of  a  small  or  weak  toward  a  great  and  powerful 
nation  dooms  the  former  to  be  the  satellite  of  the  latter.  Against  the  insidious 
wiles  of  foreign  influence  (I  conjure  you  to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens)  the  jeal- 
ousy of  a  free  people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake,  since  history  and  experience 
prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most  baneful  foes  of  republican  Govern- 
ment. But  that  jealousy,  to  be  useful,  must  be  impartial,  else  it  becomes  the 
instrument  of  the  very  influence  to  be  avoided,  instead  of  a  defense  against  it. 
Excessive  partiality  for  one  foreign  nation  and  excessive  dislike  of  another  cause 
those  whom  they  actuate  to  see  danger  only  on  one  side,  and  serve  to  veil  and 
even  second  the  arts  of  influence  on  the  other.  Real  patriots  who  may  resist  the 
intrigues  of  the  favorite  are  liable  to  become  suspected  and  odious,  while  its 
tools  and  dupes  usurp  the  applause  and  confidence  of  the  people  to  surrender  their 
interests. 

The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foreign  nations  is,  in  extending 
our  commercial  relations  to  have  with  them  as  little  political  connection  as  possi- 
ble. So  far  as  we  have  already  formed  engagements  let  them  be  fulfilled  with 
perfect  good  faith.    Here  let  us  stop. 

Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have  none  or  a  very  remote 
relation.  Hence  she  rrKist  be  engaged  in  frequent  controversies,  the  causes  of 
which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence,  therefore,  it  must  be  un- 
wise in  us  to  implicate  ourselves  by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of 
her  politics  or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  collisions  of  her  friendships  or 
enmities. 

Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites  and  enables  us  to  pursue  a  differ- 


AMERICAN   FOREIGN   POLICY  3 

ent  course.  If  we  remain  one  people,  under  an  efficient  Government,  the  period 
is  not  far  off  when  we  may  defy  material  injury  from  external  annoyance ;  when 
we  may  take  such  an  attitude  as  will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at  any  time 
resolve  upon  to  be  scrupulously  respected;  when  belligerent  nations,  under  the 
impossibility  of  making  acquisitions  upon  us,  will  not  lightly  hazard  the  giving  us 
provocation ;  when  we  may  choose  peace  or  war,  as  our  interest,  guided  by  jus- 
tice, shall  counsel. 

Why  forego  the  advantages  of  so  peculiar  a  situation  ?  Why  quit  our  own  to 
stand  ufMDn  foreign  ground  ?  Why,  by  interweaving  our  destiny  with  that  of  any 
part  of  Europe,  entangle  our  peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  am- 
bition, rivalship,  interest,  humor,  or  caprice? 

It  is  our  true  policy  to  steer  clear  of  permanent  alliances  with  any  portion 
of  the  foreign  world,  so  far,  I  mean,  as  we  are  now  at  liberty  to  do  it ;  for  let 
me  not  be  understood  as  capable  of  patronizing  infidelity  to  existing  engage- 
ments. I  hold  the  maxim  no  less  applicable  to  public  than  to  private  affairs  that 
honesty  is  always  the  best  policy.  I  repeat,  therefore,  let  those  engagements  be 
observed  in  their  genuine  sense.  But  in  my  opinion  it  is  unecessary  and  would  be 
unwise  to  extend  them. 

Taking  care  always  to  keep  ourselves  by  suitable  establishments  on  a  re- 
spectable defensive  posture,  we  may  safely  trust  to  temporary  alliances  for 
extraordinary  emergencies. 


II 

Thomas  Jefferson,  President  of  the  United  States,  1801-1809 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  FIRST  INAUGURAL  ADDRESS^ 

March  4,  1801 

About  to  enter,  fellow-citizens,  on  the  exercise  of  duties  which  comprehend 
everything  dear  and  valuable  to  you,  it  is  proper  you  should  understand  what  I 
deem  the  essential  principles  of  our  Government,  and  consequently  those  which 
ought  to  shape  its  Administration.  I  will  compress  them  within  the  narrowest 
compass  they  will  bear,  stating  the  general  principle,  but  not  all  its  limitations. 
Equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  men,  of  whatever  State  or  persuasion,  religious 
or  political ;  peace,  commerce,  and  honest  friendship  with  all  nations,  entangling 
alliances  with  none;  the  support  of  the  State  governments  in  all  their  rights,  as 
the  most  competent  administrations  for  our  domestic  concerns  and  the  surest 
bulwarks  against  antirepublican  tendencies;  the  preservation  of  the  General 
Government  in  its  whole  constitutional  vigor,  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  peace  at 
home  and  safety  abroad;  a  jealous  care  of  the  right  of  election  by  the  people — a 
mild  and  safe  corrective  of  abuses  which  are  lopped  by  the  sword  of  revolution 
where  peaceable  remedies  are  unprovided;  absolute  acquiescence  in  the  decisions 
of  the  majority,  the  vital  principle  of  republics,  from  which  is  no  appeal  but  to 
force,  the  vital  principle  and  immediate  parent  of  despotism;  a  well-disciplined 
militia,  our  best  reliance  in  peace  and  for  the  first  moments  of  war,  till  regulars 
may  relieve  them ;  the  supremacy  of  the  civil  over  the  military  authority;  economy 
in  the  public  expense,  that  labor  may  be  lightly  burthened ;  the  honest  payment  of 
our  debts  and  sacred  preservation  of  the  public  faith ;  encouragement  of  agricul- 
ture, and  of  commerce  as  its  handmaid ;  the  diffusion  of  information  and  arraign- 
ment of  all  abuses  at  the  bar  of  the  public  reason ;  freedom  of  religion ;  freedom 
of  the  press,  and  freedom  of  person  under  the  protection  of  the  habeas  corpus, 
and  trial  by  juries  impartially  selected.  These  principles  form  the  bright  constel- 
lation which  has  gone  before  us  and  guided  our  steps  through  an  age  of  revolu- 
tion and  reformation.  The  wisdom  of  our  sages  and  blood  of  our  heroes  have 
been  devoted  to  their  attainment.  They  should  be  the  creed  of  our  political 
faith,  the  text  of  civic  instruction,  the  touchstone  by  which  to  try  the  services 
of  those  we  trust ;  and  should  we  wander  from  them  in  moments  of  error  or  of 
alarm,  let  us  hasten  to  retrace  our  steps  and  to  regain  the  road  which  alone  leads 
to  peace,  liberty,  and  safety. 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  1,  pp.  323-324. 


Ill 

James  Monroe,  President  of  the  United  States,  1817-1825 

EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  SEVENTH  ANNUAL  MESSAGEi 
December  2,  1823 

At  the  proposal  of  the  Russian  Imperial  Government,  made  through  the 
minister  of  the  Emperor  residing  here,  a  full  power  and  instructions  have  been 
transmitted  to  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  at  St.  Petersburg,  to  arrange, 
by  amicable  negotiation,  the  respective  rights  and  interests  of  the  two  nations  on 
the  north-west  coast  of  this  continent.  A  similar  proposal  had  been  made  by 
His  Imperial  Majesty  to  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  which  has  likewise 
been  acceded  to.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  been  desirous,  by 
this  friendly  proceeding,  of  manifesting  the  great  value  which  they  have  invaria- 
bly attached  to  the  friendship  of  the  Emperor,  and  their  solicitude  to  cultivate 
the  best  understanding  with  his  Government.  In  the  discussions  to  which  this- 
interest  has  given  rise  and  in  the  arrangements  by  which  they  may  terminate,  the 
occasion  has  been  judged  proper  for  asserting,  as  a  principle  in  which  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the  American  continents,  by 
the  free  and  independent  condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are 
henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  colonization  by  any  Euro- 
pean powers.     ... 

The  citizens  of  the  United  States  cherish  sentiments  the  most  friendly  in 
favor  of  the  liberty  and  happiness  of  their  fellowmen  on  that  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
In  the  wars  of  the  European  Powers,  in  matters  relating  to  themselves,  we  have 
never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our  policy  so  to  do.  It  is  only 
when  our  rights  are  invaded  or  seriously  menaced  that  we  resent  injuries  or 
make  preparation  for  our  defense.  With  the  movements  in  this  hemisphere  we 
are  of  necessity  more  immediately  connected,  and  by  causes  which  must  be  obvi- 
ous to  all  enlightened  and  impartial  observers.  The  political  system  of  the  allied 
Powers  is  essentially  different  in  this  respect  from  that  of  America.  This  dif- 
ference proceeds  from  that  which  exists  in  their  respective  Governments ;  and  to 
the  defense  of  our  own,  which  has  been  achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood 
and  treasure,  and  matured  by  the  wisdom  of  their  most  enlightened  citizens,  and 
under  which  we  have  enjoyed  unexampled  felicity,  this  whole  nation  is  devoted. 
We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable  relations  existing  between  the 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  2,  pp.  209,  218,  219. 


6  AMERICAN  FOREIGN   POLICY 

United  States  and  those  Powers  to  declare  that  we  should  consider  any  attempt 
on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  danger- 
ous to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any 
European  Power  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the 
Governments  who  have  declared  their  independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose 
independence  we  have,  on  great  consideration  and  on  just  principles,  acknowl- 
edged, we  could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them, 
or  controlling  in  any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European  Power,  in  any 
other  light  than  as  the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  towards  the 
United  States.     .     .     . 

Our  policy  in  regard  to  Europe,  which  was  adopted  at  an  early  stage  of  the 
wars  which  have  so  long  agitated  that  quarter  of  the  globe,  nevertheless  remains 
the  same,  which  is,  not  to  interfere  in  the  internal  concerns  of  any  of  its  Powers ; 
to  consider  the  Government  de  facto  as  the  legitimate  Government  for  us;  to 
cultivate  friendly  relations  with  it,  and  to  preserve  those  relations  by  a  frank, 
firm,  and  manly  policy,  meeting  in  all  instances  the  just  claims  of  every  Power, 
submitting  to  injuries  from  none.  But  in  regard  to  those  continents  circum- 
stances are  eminently  and  conspicuously  different.  It  is  impossible  that  the 
allied  powers  should  extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion  of  either  conti- 
nent without  endangering  our  peace  and  happiness ;  nor  can  anyone  believe  that 
our  southern  brethren,  if  left  to  themselves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord. 
It  is  equally  impossible,  therefore,  that  we  should  behold  such  interposition  in 
any  form  with  indifference. 


IV 

James  K.  Polk,  President  of  the  United  States,  1845-1849 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  FIRST  ANNUAL  MESSAGEi 

December  2,  1845 

It  is  well  known  to  the  American  people  and  to  all  nations  that  this  Govern- 
ment has  never  interfered  with  the  relations  subsisting  between  other  Gk)vern- 
ments.  We  have  never  made  ourselves  parties  to  their  wars  or  their  alliances ; 
we  have  not  sought  their  territories  by  conquest;  we  have  not  mingled  with 
parties  in  their  domestic  struggles;  and  believing  our  own  form  of  government 
to  be  the  best,  we  have  never  attempted  to  propagate  it  by  intrigues,  by  diplo- 
macy, or  by  force.  We  may  claim  on  this  continent  a  like  exemption  from 
European  interference.  The  nations  of  America  are  equally  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent with  those  of  Europe.  They  possess  the  same  rights,  independent  of  all 
foreign  interposition,  to  make  war,  to  conclude  peace,  and  to  regulate  their  in- 
ternal affairs.  The  people  of  the  United  States  can  not,  therefore,  view  with 
indifference  attempts  of  European  Powers  to  interfere  with  the  independent  action 
of  the  nations  on  this  continent.  The  American  system  of  government  is  entirely 
different  from  that  of  Europe.  Jealousy  among  the  different  sovereigns  of  Eu- 
rope, lest  any  one  of  them  might  become  too  powerful  for  the  rest,  has  caused 
them  anxiously  to  desire  the  establishment  of  what  they  term  the  "balance  of 
power."  It  can  not  be  permitted  to  have  any  application  on  the  North  American 
continent,  and  especially  to  the  United  States.  We  must  ever  maintain  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  people  of  this  continent  alone  have  the  right  to  decide  their  own 
destiny.  Should  any  portion  of  them,  constituting  an  independent  State,  propose 
to  unite  themselves  with  our  Confederacy,  this  will  be  a  question  for  them  and 
us  to  determine  without  any  foreign  interposition.  We  can  never  consent  that 
European  powers  shall  interfere  to  prevent  such  a  union  because  it  might  disturb 
the  "balance  of  power"  which  they  may  desire  to  maintain  upon  this  continent. 
Near  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  the  principle  was  distinctly  announced  to  the 
world,  in  the  annual  message  of  one  of  my  predecessors,  that — 

The  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which 
they  have  assumed  and  maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as 
subjects  for  future  colonization  by  any  European  Powers. 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  4,  pp.  398-399. 


8  AMERICAN  FOREIGN   POLICY 

This  principle  will  apply  with  greatly  increased  force  should  any  European 
Power  attempt  to  establish  any  new  colony  in  North  America.  In  the  existing 
circumstances  of  the  world  the  present  is  deemed  a  proper  occasion  to  reiterate 
and  reaffirm  the  principle  avowed  by  Mr.  Monroe  and  to  state  my  cordial  con- 
currence in  its  wisdom  and  sound  policy.  The  reassertion  of  this  principle, 
especially  in  reference  to  North  America,  is  at  this  day  but  the  promulgation  of 
a  policy  which  no  European  Power  should  cherish  the  disposition  to  resist. 
Existing  rights  of  every  European  nation  should  be  respected,  but  it  is  due  alike 
to  our  safety  and  our  interests  that*  the  efficient  protection  of  our  laws  should 
be  extended  over  our  whole  territorial  limits,  and  that  it  should  be  distinctly 
announced  to  the  world  as  our  settled  policy  that  no  future  European  colony  or 
dominion  shall  with  our  consent  be  planted  or  established  on  any  part  of  the 
North  American  continent. 


James  K.  Polk,  President  of  the  United  States 

SPECIAL  MESSAGE  TO  THE  SENATE  AND  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES^ 

April  29,  1848 

I  submit  for  the  consideration  of  Congress  several  communications  received 
at  the  Department  of  State  from  Mr.  Justo  Sierra,  commissioner  of  Yucatan, 
and  also  a  communication  from  the  Governor  of  that  State,  representing  the 
condition  of  extreme  suffering  to  which  their  country  has  been  reduced  by  an 
insurrection  of  the  Indians  within  its  limits,  and  asking  the  aid  of  the  United 
States. 

These  communications  present  a  case  of  human  suffering  and  misery  which 
can  not  fail  to  excite  the  sympathies  of  all  civilized  nations.  From  these  and 
other  sources  of  information  it  appears  that  the  Indians  of  Yucatan  are  waging 
a  war  of  extermination  against  the  white  race.  In  this  civil  war  they  spare 
neither  age  nor  sex,  but  put  to  death,  indiscriminately,  all  who  fall  within  their 
power.  The  inhabitants,  panic  stricken  and  destitute  of  arms,  are  flying  before 
their  savage  pursuers  toward  the  coast,  and  their  expulsion  from  their  country 
or  their  extermination  would  seem  to  be  inevitable  unless  they  can  obtain  assis- 
tance from  abroad. 

In  this  condition  they  have,  through  their  constituted  authorities,  implored 
the  aid  of  this  Government  to  save  them  from  destruction,  offering  in  case  this 
should  be  granted  to  transfer  the  '^dominion  and  sovereignty  of  the  pensinsula" 
to  the  United  States.  Similar  appeals  for  aid  and  protection  have  been  made  to 
the  Spanish  and  the  English  Governments. 

Whilst  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  any  measure 
with  a  view  to  the  acquisition  of  the  "dominion  and  sovereignty"  over  Yucatan, 
yet,  according  to  our  established  policy,  we  could  not  consent  to  a  transfer  of 
this  "dominion  and  sovereignty"  either  to  Spain,  Great  Britain,  or  any  other 
European  power.  In  the  language  of  President  Monroe  in  his  message  of  De- 
cember, 1823: 

We  should  consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to 
any  portion  of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety. 

In  my  annual  message  of  December,  1845,  I  declared  that — 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  4,  pp.  581-583. 

9 


10  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Near  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  the  principle  was  distinctly  announced 
to  the  world,  in  the  annual  message  of  one  of  my  predecessors,  that  **the 
American  continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which  they  have 
assumed  and  maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for 
future  colonization  by  any  European  powers."  This  principle  will  apply  with 
greatly  increased  force  should  any  European  power  attempt  to  establish  any 
new  colony  in  North  America.  In  the  existing  circumstances  of  the  world, 
the  present  is  deemed  a  proper  occasion  to  reiterate  and  reaffirm  the  prin- 
ciple avowed  by  Mr.  Monroe,  and  to  state  my  cordial  concurrence  in  its 
wisdom  and  sound  policy.  The  reassertion  of  this  principle,  especially  in 
reference  to  North  America,  is  at  this  day  but  the  promulgation  of  a  policy 
which  no  European  power  should  cherish  the  disposition  to  resist.  Existing 
rights  of  every  European  nation  should  be  respected,  but  it  is  due  alike  to 
our  safety  and  our  interests  that  the  efficient  protection  of  our  laws  should 
be  extended  over  our  whole  territorial  limits,  and  that  it  should  be  distinctly 
announced  to  the  world  as  our  settled  policy  that  no  future  European  colony 
or  dominion  shall  with  our  consent  be  planted  or  established  on  any  part  of 
the  North  American  continent. 

Our  own  security  requires  that  the  established  policy  thus  announced  should 
guide  our  conduct,  and  this  applies  with  great  force  to  the  peninsula  of  Yucatan. 
It  is  situate  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  on  the  North  American  continent,  and,  from 
its  vicinity  to  Cuba,  to  the  capes  of  Florida,  to  New  Orleans,  and,  indeed,  to  our 
whole  southwestern  coast,  it  would  be  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  security  if  it 
should  become  a  colony  of  any  European  nation. 

We  have  now  authentic  information  that  if  the  aid  asked  from  the  United 
States  be  not  granted  such  aid  will  probably  be  obtained  from  some  European 
power,  which  may  hereafter  assert  a  claim  to  "dominion  and  sovereignty"  over 
Yucatan. 

Our  existing  relations  with  Yucatan  are  of  a  peculiar  character,  as  will  be 
perceived  from  the  note  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  their  commissioner  dated  on 
the  24th  of  December  last,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  transmitted.  Yucatan 
has  never  declared  her  independence,  and  we  treated  her  as  a  State  of  the  Mexican 
Republic.  For  this  reason  we  have  never  officially  received  her  commissioner; 
but  whilst  this  is  the  case,  we  have  to  a  considerable  extent  recognized  her  as  a 
neutral  in  our  war  with  Mexico.  Whilst  still  considering  Yucatan  as  a  portion 
of  Mexico,  if  we  had  troops  to  spare  for  this  purpose  I  would  deem  it  proper, 
during  the  continuance  of  the  war  with  Mexico,  to  occupy  and  hold  military 
possession  of  her  territory  and  to  defend  the  white  inhabitants  against  the  incur- 
sions of  the  Indians,  in  the  same  way  that  we  have  employed  our  troops  in  other 
States  of  the  Mexican  Republic  in  our  possession  in  repelling  the  attacks  of 
savages  upon  the  inhabitants  who  have  maintained  their  neutrality  in  the  war. 
But,  unfortunately,  we  can  not  at  the  present  time,  without  serious  danger,  with- 
draw our  forces  from  other  portions  of  the  Mexican  territory  now  in  our  occu- 
pation and  send  them  to  Yucatan.    All  that  can  be  done  under  existing  circum- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  11 

stances  is  to  employ  our  naval  forces  in  the  Gulf  not  required  at  other  points  to 
afford  them  relief;  but  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  any  adequate  protection  can 
thus  be  afforded,  as  the  operations  of  such  naval  forces  must  of  necessity  be 
confined  to  the  coast. 

I  have  considered  it  proper  to  communicate  the  information  contained  in  the 
accompanying  correspondence,  and  I  submit  to  the  wisdom  of  Congress  to  adopt 
such  measures  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  expedient  to  prevent  Yucatan  from 
becoming  a  colony  of  any  European  power,  which  in  no  event  could  be  permitted 
by  the  United  States,  and  at  the  same  time  to  rescue  the  white  race  from  exter- 
mination or  expulsion  from  their  country. 


VI 

James  Buchanan,   President  of  the   United   States,  1857-1861 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  SECOND  ANNUAL  MESSAGEi 

December  6,  1858 

Our  position  in  relation  to  the  independent  States  south  of  us  on  this  conti- 
nent, and  especially  those  within  the  limits  of  North  America,  is  of  a  peculiar 
character.  The  northern  boundary  of  Mexico  is  coincident  with  our  own  south- 
ern boundary  from  ocean  to  ocean,  and  we  must  necessarily  feel  a  deep  interest 
in  all  that  concerns  the  well-being  and  the  fate  of  so  near  a  neighbor.  We  have 
always  cherished  the  kindest  wishes  for  the  success  of  that  Republic,  and  have 
indulged  the  hope  that  it  might  at  last,  after  all  its  trials,  enjoy  peace  and  pros- 
perity under  a  free  and  stable  government.  We  have  never  hitherto  interfered, 
directly  or  indirectly,  with  its  internal  affairs,  and  it  is  a  duty  which  we  owe  to 
ourselves  to  protect  the  integrity  of  its  territory  against  the  hostile  interference 
of  any  other  Power.  Our  geographical  position,  our  direct  interest  in  all  that 
concerns  Mexico,  and  our  well-settled  policy  in  regard  to  the  North  American 
continent  render  this  an  indispensable  duty. 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  5,  p.  511. 


12 


VII 

Ulysses  S.  Grant,  President  of  the  United  States,  1869-1877 

EXTRACT  FROM  SPECIAL  MESSAGE  TO  THE  SENATE^ 
May  31.  1870 

I  transmit  to  the  Senate,  for  consideration  with  a  view  to  its  ratification,  an 
additional  article  to  the  treaty  of  the  29th  of  November  last,  for  the  annexation 
of  the  Dominican  Republic  to  the  United  States,  stipulating  for  an  extension  of 
the  time  for  exchanging  the  ratifications  thereof,  signed  in  this  city  on  the  14th 
instant  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  parties. 

It  was  my  intention  to  have  also  negotiated  with  the  plenipotentiary  of  San 
Domingo  amendments  to  the  treaty  of  annexation  to  obviate  objections  which 
may  be  urged  against  the  treaty  as  it  is  now  worded ;  but  on  reflection  I  deem  it 
better  to  submit  to  the  Senate  the  propriety  of  their  amending  the  treaty  as 
follows:  First,  to  specify  that  the  obligations  of  this  Government  shall  not 
exceed  the  $1,500,000  stipulated  in  the  treaty;  secondly,  to  determine  the  manner 
of  appointing  the  agents  to  receive  and  disburse  the  same ;  thirdly,  to  determine 
the  class  of  creditors  who  shall  take  precedence  in  the  settlement  of  their  claims ; 
and,  finally,  to  insert  such  amendments  as  may  suggest  themselves  to  the  minds  of 
Senators  to  carry  out  in  good  faith  the  conditions  of  the  treaty  submitted  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  in  January  last,  according  to  the  spirit  and  intent 
of  that  treaty.  From  the  most  reliable  information  I  can  obtain,  the  sum  speci- 
fied in  the  treaty  will  pay  every  just  claim  against  the  Republic  of  San  Domingo 
and  leave  a  balance  sufficient  to  carry  on  a  Territorial  Government  until  such 
time  as  new  laws  for  providing  a  Territorial  revenue  can  be  enacted  and  put  in 
force. 

I  feel  an  unusual  anxiety  for  the  ratification  of  this  treaty,  because  I  believe 
it  will  redound  greatly  to  the  glory  of  the  two  countries  interested,  to  civilization, 
and  to  the  extirpation  of  the  institution  of  slavery. 

The  doctrine  promulgated  by  President  Monroe  has  been  adhered  to  by  all 
political  parties,  and  I  now  deem  it  proper  to  assert  the  equally  important  princi- 
ple that  hereafter  no  territory  on  this  continent  shall  be  regarded  as  subject  of 
transfer  to  a  European  Power. 

The  Government  of  San  Domingo  has  voluntarily  sought  this  annexation.  It 
is  a  weak  Power,  numbering  probably  less  than  120,000  souls,  and  yet  possessing 
one  of  the  richest  territories  under  the  sun,  capable  of  supporting  a  population  of 
10,000,000  people  in  luxury.  The  people  of  San  Domingo  are  not  capable  of 
maintaining  themselves  in  their  present  condition,  and  must  look  for  outside 
support. 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol.  7,  p.  61.    The  Senate  rejected 
the  treaty  June  30,  1870,  and  the  movement  toward  annexation  became  generally  unpopular. 


13 


VIII 

James  G.  Blaine,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
1881, 1889-1892 

CALL  FOR  THE  FIRST  INTERNATIONAL  AMERICAN  CONFERENCE^ 

November  29,  1881 

[The  Pan  American  Conference  was  proposed  by  Secretary  of  State  Blaine,  in  1881, 
as  appears  from  his  circular  note  of  November  29,  1881.  The  invitation  was  generally 
accepted,  but  Mr.  Blaine's  resignation  from  office,  international  complications  in  South 
America  and  other  causes  prevented  the  meeting  of  the  Conference  until  Mr.  Blaine  was 
again  Secretary  of  State  under  President  Harrison.  The  Conference  met  in  Washington 
on  October  2,  1889,  and  was  formally  opened  by  Secretary  Blaine,  in  person,  who  delivered 
the  opening  address.  He  was  its  President,  and  delivered  the  closing  address,  in  which, 
adverting  to  its  recommendation  of  a  uniform  treaty  of  arbitration,  he  used  the  happy 
phrase  "this  new  Magna  Charta,  which  abolishes  war  and  substitutes  arbitration  between 
the  American  republics."  The  Conference  recommended  also  conventions  on  literary  and 
artistic  property,  on  patents  and  on  trade-marks  and  other  subjects. 

This  Conference,  due  to  Secretary  Blaine's  foresight  and  perseverance,  brought  the 
official  representatives  of  America  together  and  furnished  a  precedent  for  the  Hague 
Conference  which  was  held  ten  years  later,  and  which,  like  it,  met  in  time  of  peace  to 
discuss  the  means  of  preserving  peace,  instead  of  meeting  in  time  of  war  to  end  war 
and  only  incidentally  to  discuss  problems  of  a  kind  calculated  to  keep  peace.  The  Confer- 
ence agreed  upon  a  union  and  established  the  International  Bureau  of  the  American  Republics, 
whose  name  was  changed  at  a  later  conference  to  The  Pan  American  Union,  in  which  every 
American  Republic  is  represented  by  its  diplomatic  agent,  accredited  to  Washington,  under 
the  presidency  of  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States.  The  second  meeting  was 
held  in  the  city  of  Mexico  in  1901-2,  and  among  very  important  measures,  approved  the 
Hague  Conventions  of  1899  and  prepared  the  way  for  participation  of  all  Latin  America 
in  the  Second  Hague  Conference.  The  third  conference  was  held  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  in 
1906,  which  Elihu  Root,  then  Secretary  of  State,  attended  in  person.  It  drew  up  conventions 
on  naturalization,  pecuniary  claims,  industrial  property  and  international  law.  The  fourth 
conference  was  held  at  Buenos  Aires  in  1910,  and  adopted  four  conventions. 

The  first  Pan  American  Conference,  as  has  been  said,  antedated  the  first  Hague  Peace 
Conference.  The  form  of  organization — in  which  each  State  maintains  its  absolute  inde- 
pendence, is  represented  upon  a  footing  of  absolute  equality,  organizing  the  New  World — 
furnishes  a  precedent  for  an  organization  based  upon  like  principles  of  the  other  continents.! 

Department  of  State), 
Washington,  November  2p,  i88i. 

Sir:  The  attitude  of  the  United  States  with  respect  to  the  question  of  gen- 
eral peace  on  the  American  continent  is  well  known  through  its  persistent  efforts 
for  years  past  to  avert  the  evils  of  warfare,  or,  these  efforts  failing,  to  bring  posi- 
tive conflicts  to  an  end  through  pacific  counsels  or  the  advocacy  of  impartial 
arbitration. 


1  Circular  instruction  to  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  the  United  States  in  the 
capitals  of  Latin  America.  International  American  Conference  (Washington,  1890),  voL 
4,  p.  255. 

14 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  1-5 

This  attitude  has  been  consistently  maintained,  and  always  with  such  fair- 
ness as  to  leave  no  room  for  imputing  to  our  Government  any  motive  except  the 
humane  and  disinterested  one  of  saving  kindred  States  of  the  American  continent 
from  the  burdens  of  war.  The  position  of  the  United  States  as  the  leading 
Power  of  the  New  World  might  well  .give  to  its  Government  a  claim  to  authori- 
tative utterance  for  the  purpose  of  quieting  discord  among  its  neighbors,  with  all 
of  whom  the  most  friendly  relations  exist.  Nevertheless,  the  good  offices  of  this 
Government  are  not  and  have  not  at  any  time  been  tendered  with  a  show  of  dic- 
tation or  compulsion,  but  only  as  exhibiting  the  solicitous  good-will  of  a  common 
friend. 

For  some  years  past  a  growing  disposition  has  been  manifested  by  certain 
States  of  Central  and  South  America  to  refer  disputes  affecting  grave  questions 
of  international  relationship  and  boundaries  to  arbitration  rather  than  to  the 
sword.  It  has  been  on  several  such  occasions  a  source  of  profound  satisfaction 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  see  that  this  country  is  in  a  large 
measure  looked  to  by  all  the  American  powers  as  their  friend  and  mediator.  The 
just  and  impartial  counsel  of  the  President  in  such  cases  has  never  been  withheld, 
and  his  efforts  have  been  rewarded  by  the  prevention  of  sanguinary  strife  or  angry 
contentions  between  peoples  whom  we  regard  as  brethren. 

The  existence  of  this  growing  tendency  convinces  the  President  that  the 
time  is  ripe  for  a  proposal  that  shall  enlist  the  good-will  and  active  cooperation 
of  all  the  States  of  the  Western  Hemisphere,  both  notth.and  south,  in  the  interest 
of  humanity  and  for  the  common  weal  of  nations.  He  conceives  that  none  of  the 
governments  of  America  can  be  less  alive  than  our  own  to  the  dangers  and  hor- 
rors of  a  state  of  war,  and  especially  of  war  between  kinsmen.  He  is  sure  that 
none  of  the  chiefs  of  Governments  on  the  continent  can  be  less  sensitive  than  he  is 
to  the  sacred  duty  of  making  every  endeavor  to  do  away  with  the  chances  of 
fratricidal  strife.  And  he  looks  with  hopeful  confidence  to  such  active  assistance 
from  them  as  will  serve  to  show  the  broadness  of  our  common  humanity  and  the 
strength  of  the  ties  which  bind  us  all  together  as  a  great  and  harmonious  system 
of  American  commonwealths. 

Impressed  by  these  views,  the  President  extends  to  all  the  independent  coun- 
tries of  North  ahd  South  America  an  earnest  invitation  to  participate  in  a  general 
congress,  to  be  held  in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  24th  day  of  November, 
1882,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  discussing  the  methods  of  preventing 
war  between  the  nations  of  America.  He  desires  that  the  attention  of  the  con- 
gress shall  be  strictly  confined  to  this  one  great  object;  that  its  sole  aim  shall 
be  to  seek  a  way  of  permanently  averting  the  horrors  of  cruel  and  bloody  combat 
between  countries,  oftenest  of  one  blood  and  speech,  or  the  even  worse  calamity 
of  internal  commotion  and  civil  strife;  that  it  shall  regard  the  burdensome  and 
far-reaching  consequences  of  such  struggles,  the  legacies  of  exhausted  finances. 


R<>iUf.T  to 

BUREAU  OF  INT1k.AriONiLRELATONe 
Uoiversity  «£  Ca^r 


16  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

of  Oppressive  debt,  of  onerous  taxation,  of  ruined  cities,  of  paralyzed  industries, 
of  devastated  fields,  of  ruthless  conscription,  of  the  slaughter  of  men,  of  the  grief 
of  the  widow  and  the  orphan,  of  embittered  resentments,  that  long  survive  those 
who  provoked  them  and  heavily  afflict  the  innocent  generations  that  come  after. 

The  President  is  especially  desirous  to  have  it  understood  that  in  putting 
forth  this  invitation  the  United  States  does  not  assume  the  position  of  counseling, 
or  attempting,  through  the  voice  of  the  congress,  to  counsel  any  determinate 
solution  of  existing  questions  which  may  now  divide  any  of  the  countries  of 
America.  Such  questions  can  not  properly  come  before  the  congress.  Its  mis- 
sion is  higher.  It  is  to  provide  for  the  interests  of  all  in  the  future,  not  to  settle 
the  individual  differences  of  the  present.  For  this^  reason  especially  the  President 
has  indicated  a  day  for  the  assembling  of  the  congress  so  far  in  the  future  as 
to  leave  good  ground  for  hope  that  by  the  time  named  the  present  situation  on 
the  South  Pacific  coast  will  be  happily  terminated,  and  that  those  engaged  in  the 
contest  may  take  peaceable  part  in  the  discussion  and  solution  of  the  general 
question  affecting  in  an  equal  degree  the  well-being  of  all. 

It  seems  also  desirable  to  disclaim  in  advance  any  purpose  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States  to  prejudge  the  issues  to  be  presented  to  the  congress.  It  is 
far  from  the  intent  of  this  Government  to  appear  before  the  congress  as  in  any 
sense  the  protector  of  its  neighbors  or  the  predestined  and  necessary  arbitrator 
of  their  disputes.  The  United  States  will  enter  into  the  deliberations  of  the  con- 
gress on  the  same  footing  as  the  other  Powers  represented,  and  with  the  loyal 
determination  to  approach  any  proposed  solution,  not  merely  in  its  own  interest  or 
with  a  view  to  asserting  its  own  power,  but  as  a  single  member  among  many 
coordinate  and  coequal  States.  So  far  as  the  influence  of  this  Government  may 
be  potential  it  will  be  exerted  in  the  direction  of  conciliating  whatever  conflicting 
interests  of  blood,  or  government,  or  historical  tradition  may  necessarily  come 
together  in  response  to  a  call  embracing  such  vast  and  diverse  elements. 

You  will  present  these  views  to  the  minister  of  foreign  relations  of  the  .  .  . 
enlarging,  if  need  be,  in  such  terms  as  will  readily  occur  to  you,  upon  the  great 
mission  which  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  proposed  congress  to  accomplish  in 
the  interest  of  humanity,  and  upon  the  firm  purpose  of  the  United  States  to  main- 
tain a  position  of  the  most  absolute  and  impartial  friendship  towards  all.  You 
will  thereupon,  in  the  name  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  tender  to  His 
Excellency  the  President  of  ...  a  formal  invitation  to  send  two  commissioners 
to  the  congress,  provided  with  such  powers  and  instructions  on  behalf  of  their 
Government  as  will  enable  them  to  consider  the  questions  brought  before  that 
body  within  the  limit  of  submission  contemplated  by  this  invitation.  The  United 
States,  as  well  as  the  other  powers,  will  in  like  manner  be  represented  by  two 
commissioners,  so  that  equality  and  impartiality  will  be  amply  secured  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  congress. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  •     17 

In  delivering-  this  invitation  through  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  you  will 
read  this  dispatch  to  him  and  leave  with  him  a  copy,  intimating  that  an  answer 
is  desired  by  this  Government  as  promptly  as  the  just  consideration  of  so  impor- 
tant a  proposition  will  permit. 

I  am,  etc., 

James  G.  Blaine, 


ADDRESS  OF  WELCOME  TO  THE  CONFERENGEi 

Gentlemen  of  the  International  American  Conference  :  Speaking  for 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  I  bid  you  welcome  to  this  capital.  Speaking 
for  the  people  of  the  United  States,  I  bid  you  welcome  to  every  section  and  to 
every  State  of  the  Union.  You  come  in  response  to  an  invitation  extended  by 
the  President  on  the  special  authorization  of  Congress.  Your  presence  here  is  no 
ordinary  event.  It  signifies  much  to  the  people  of  all  America  today.  It  may 
signify  far  more  in  the  days  to  come.  No  conference  of  nations  has  ever 
assembled  to  consider  the  welfare  of  territorial  possessions  so  vast  and  to  con- 
template the  possibilities  of  a  future  so  great  and  so  inspiring.  Those  now 
sitting  within  these  walls  are  empowered  to  speak  for  nations  whose  borders 
are  on  both  the  great  oceans,  whose  northern  limits  are  touched  by  the  Arctic 
waters  for  a  thousand  miles  beyond  the  Straits  of  Behring  and  whose  southern 
extension  furnishes  human  habitations  farther  below  the  equator  than  is  else- 
where possible  on  the  globe. 

The  aggregate  territorial  extent  of  the  nations  here  represented  falls  but 
little  short  of  12,000,000  of  square  miles — more  than  three  times  the  area  of  all 
Europe,  and  but  little  less  than  one-fourth  part  of  the  globe;  while  in  respect 
to  the  power  of  producing  the  articles  which  are  essential  to  human  life  and 
those  which  minister  to  life's  luxury,  they  constitute  even  a  larger  proportion  of 
the  entire  world.  These  great  possessions  today  have  an  aggregate  population 
approaching  120,000,000,  but  if  peopled  as  densely  as  the  average  of  Europe, 
the  total  number  would  exceed  1,000,000,000.  While  considerations  of  this  char- 
acter must  inspire  Americans,  both  South  and  North,  with  the  liveliest  anticipa- 
tions of  future  grandeur  and  power,  they  must  also  impress  them  with  a  sense 
of  the  gravest  responsibility  touching  the  character  and  development  of  their 
respective  nationalities. 


1  Delivered  October  2,  1889.    International  American  Conference:  Reports  of  Committees 
and  Discussions  Thereon,  vol.  1,  p.  39. 


18  AMERICAN  F0RE:IGN  POLICY 

The  Delegates  I  am  addressing  can  do  much  to  establish  permanent  relations 
of  confidence,  respect,  and  friendship  between  the  nations  which  they  represent. 
They  can  show  to  the  world  an  honorable,  peaceful  conference  of  eighteen  inde- 
pendent American  Powers,  in  which  all  shall  meet  together  on  terms  of  absolute 
equality ;  a  conference  in  which  there  can  be  no  attempt  to  coerce  a  single  Dele- 
gate against  his  own  conception  of  the  interests  of  his  nation ;  a  conference  which 
will  permit  no  secret  understanding  on  any  subject,  but  will  frankly  publish  to 
the  world  all  its  conclusions;  a  conference  which  will  tolerate  no  spirit  of  con- 
quest, but  will  aim  to  cultivate  an  American  sympathy  as  broad  as  both  con- 
tinents ;  a  conference  which  will  form  no  selfish  alliance  against  the  older  nations 
from  which  we  are  proud  to  claim  inheritance — a  conference,  in  fine,  which  will 
seek  nothing,  propose  nothing,  endure  nothing  that  is  not,  in  the  general  sense  of 
all  the  Delegates,  timely  and  wise  and  peaceful. 

And  yet  we  can  not  be  expected  to  forget  that  our  common  fate  has  made 
us  inhabitants  of  the  two  continents  which,  at  the  close  of  four  centuries,  are 
still  regarded  beyond  the  seas  as  the  New  World.  Like  situations  beget  like 
sympathies  and  impose  like  duties.  We  meet  in  firm  belief  that  the  nations  of 
America  ought  to  be  and  can  be  more  helpful,  each  to  the  other,  than  they  now 
are,  and  that  each  will  find  advantage  and  profit  from  an  enlarged  intercourse 
with  the  others. 

We  believe  that  we  should  be  drawn  together  more  closely  by  the  highways 
of  the  sea,  and  that  at  no  distant  day  the  railway  systems  of  the  north  and  south 
will  meet  upon  the  isthmus  and  connect  by  land  routes  the  political  and  com- 
mercial capitals  of  all  America. 

We  believe  that  hearty  co-operation,  based  on  hearty  confidence,  will  save 
all  American  States  from  the  burdens  and  evils  which  have  long  and  cruelly 
afflicted  the  older  nations  of  the  world. 

We  believe  that  a  spirit  of  justice,  of  common  and  equal  interest  between 
the  American  States,  will  leave  no  room  for  an  artificial  balance  of  power  like 
unto  that  which  has  led  to  wars  abroad  and  drenched  Europe  in  blood. 

We  believe  that  friendship,  avowed  with  candor  and  maintained  with  good 
faith,  will  remove  from  American  States  the  necessity  of  guarding  boundary 
lines  between  themselves  with  fortifications  and  military  force. 

We  believe  that  standing  armies,  beyond  those  which  are  needful  for  public 
order  and  the  safety  of  internal  administration,  should  be  unknown  on  both 
American  continents. 

We  believe  that  friendship  and  not  force,  the  spirit  of  just  law  and  not  the 
violence  of  the  mob,  should  be  the  recognized  rule  of  administration  between 
American  nations  and  in  American  nations. 

To  these  subjects,  and  those  which  are  cognate  thereto,  the  attention  of  this 
Conference  is  earnestly  and  cordially  invited  by  the  Government  of  the  United 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  19 

States.  It  will  be  a  great  gain  when  we  shall  acquire  that  common  confidence 
on  which  all  international  friendship  must  rest.  It  will  be  a  greater  gain  when 
we  shall  be  able  to  draw  the  people  of  all  American  nations  into  close  acquaintance 
with  each  other,  an  end  to  be  facilitated  by  more  frequent  and  more  rapid  inter- 
communication. It  will  be  the  greatest  gain  when  the  personal  and  commercial 
relations  of  the  American  States,  South  and  North,  shall  be  so  developed  and  so 
regulated  that  each  shall  acquire  the  highest  possible  advantage  from  the  enlight- 
ened and  enlarged  intercourse  of  all. 

Before  the  Conference  shall  formally  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  the  sub- 
jects to  be  submitted  to  it  I  am  instructed  by  the  President  to  invite  all  the  Dele- 
gates to  be  the  guests  of  the  Government  during  a  proposed  visit  to  various 
sections  of  the  country,  with  the  double  view  of  showing  to  our  friends  from 
abroad  the  condition  of  the  United  States,  and  of  giving  to  our  people  in  their 
homes  the  privilege  and  pleasure  of  extending  the  warm  welcome  of  Americans 
to  Americans. 


a.OSING  ADDRESSi 

Gentlemen  :  I  withhold  for  a  moment  the  word  of  final  adjournment,  in 
order  that  I  may  express  to  you  the  profound  satisfaction  with  which  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  regards  the  work  that  has  been  accomplished  by  the 
International  American  Conference.  The  importance  of  the  subjects  which  have 
claimed  your  attention,  the  comprehensive  intelligence  and  watchful  patriotism 
which  you  have  brought  to  their  discussion,  must  challenge  the  confidence  and 
secure  the  admiration  of  the  Governments  and  peoples  whom  you  represent; 
while  that  larger  patriotism  which  constitutes  the  fraternity  of  nations  has  re- 
ceived from  you  an  impulse  such  as  the  world  has  not  before  seen. 

The  extent  and  value  of  all  that  has  been  worthily  achieved  by  your  Con- 
ference can  not  be  measured  today.  We  stand  too  near  it.  Time  will  define  and 
heighten  the  estimate  of  your  work ;  experience  will  confirm  our  present  faith ; 
final  results  will  be  your  vindication  and  your  triumph. 

If,  in  this  closing  hour,  the  Conference  had  but  one  deed  to  celebrate,  we 
should  dare  call  the  world's  attention  to  the  deliberate,  confident,  solemn  dedi- 
cation of  two  great  continents  to  peace,  and  to  the  prosperity  which  has  peace  for 
its  foundation.  We  hold  up  this  new  Magna  Charta,  which  abolishes  war  and 
substitutes  arbitration  between  the  American  Republics,  as  the  first  and  great 


1  Delivered  April  19,  1890.    International  American  Conference:  Reports  of  Committees 
and  Discussions  Thereon,  vol.  2,.  p.  1166. 


20  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

fruit  of  the  International  American  Conference,  That  noblest  of  Americans, 
the  aged  poet  and  philanthropist,  Whittier,  is  the  first  to  send  his  salutation  and 
his  benediction,  declaring, 

If  in  the  spirit  of  peace  the  American  Conference  agrees  upon  a  rule 
of  arbitration  which  shall  make  war  in  this  hemisphere  well-nigh  impossible, 
its  sessions  will  prove  one  of  the  most  important  events  in  the  history  of 
the  world. 

I  am  instructed  by  the  President  to  express  the  wish  that  before  the  members 
of  the  Conference  shall  leave  for  their  distant  homes,  they  will  accept  the  hos- 
pitality of  the  United  States  in  a  visit  to  the  Southern  section  of  the  Union, 
similar  to  the  one  they  have  already  made  to  the  Eastern  and  Western  sections. 
The  President  trusts  that  the  tour  will  not  only  be  a  pleasant  incident  of  your 
farewell  to  the  country,  but  that  you  will  find  advantage  in  a  visit  to  so  interesting 
and  important  a  part  of  our  Republic. 

May  I  express  to  you,  gentlemen,  my  deep  appreciation  of  the  honor  you 
did  me  in  calling  me  to  preside  over  your  deliberations.  Your  kindness  has  been 
unceasing,  and  for  your  formal  words  of  approval  I  offer  you  my  sincerest 
gratitude. 

Invoking  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  upon  the  patriotic  and  fraternal 
work  which  has  been  here  begun  for  the  good  of  mankind,  I  now  declare  the 
American  International  Conference  adjourned  without  day. 


IX 

Grover  Cleveland,  President  of  the  United  States, 
1885-1889,  1893-1897 

EXTRACT  FROM  THE  THIRD  ANNUAL  MESSAGEi 

December  2,  1895 

It  being  apparent  that  the  boundary  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
Republic  of  Venezuela  concerning  the  limits  of  British  Guiana  was  approaching 
an  acute  stage,  a  definite  statement  of  the  interest  and  policy  of  the  United  States 
as  regards  the  controversy  seemed  to  be  required  both  on  its  own  account  and 
in  view  of  its  relations  with  the  friendly  Powers  directly  concerned.  In  July  last, 
therefore,  a  dispatch  was  addressed  to  our  ambassador  at  London  for  com- 
munication to  the  British  Government  in  which  the  attitude  of  the  United  States 
was  fully  and  distinctly  set  forth.  The  general  conclusions  therein  reached  and 
formulated  are  in  substance  that  the  traditional  and  established  policy  of  this 
Government  is  firmly  opposed  to  a  forcible  increase  by  any  European  Power  of 
its  territorial  possessions  on  this  continent;  that  this  policy  is  as  well  founded 
in  principle  as  it  is  strongly  supported  by  numerous  precedents ;  that  as  a  conse- 
quence the  United  States  is  bound  to  protest  against  the  enlargement  of  the  area 
of  British  Guiana  in  derogation  of  the  rights  and  against  the  will  of  Venezuela; 
that  considering  the  disparity  in  strength  of  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  the 
territorial  dispute  between  them  can  be  reasonably  settled  only  by  friendly  and 
impartial  arbitration,  and  that  the  resort  to  such  arbitration  should  include  the 
whole  controversy,  and  is  not  satisfied  if  one  of  the  Powers  concerned  is  permitted 
to  draw  an  arbitrary  line  through  the  territory  in  debate  and  to  declare  that  it 
will  submit  to  arbitration  only  the  portion  lying  on  one  side  of  it.  In  view  of 
these  conclusions,  the  dispatch  in  question  called  upon  the  British  Government 
for  a  definite  answer  to  the  question  whether  it  would  or  would  not  submit  the 
territorial  controversy  between  itself  and  Venezuela  in  its  entirety  to  impartial 
arbitration.  The  answer  of  the  British  Government  has  not  yet  been  received, 
but  is  expected  shortly,  when  further  communication  on  the  subject  will  probably 
be  made  to  the  Congress. 


1  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  vol,  9,  p.  632. 


21 


X 

John  Hay,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  1898-1905 

MEMORANDUM  TO  THE  IMPERIAL  GERMAN  EMBASSYi 
December  16,  1901 

The  President  in  his  message  of  the  3d  of  December,  1901,  used  the  follow- 
ing language:  "The  Monroe  Doctrine  is  a  declaration  that  there  must  be  no 
territorial  aggrandizement  by  any  non- American  Power  at  the  expense  of  any 
American  Power  on  American  soil.  It  is  in  no  wise  intended  as  hostile  to  any 
nation  in  the  Old  World."  The  President  further  said ;  "This  doctrine  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  commercial  relations  of  any  American  Power,  save  that  it  in 
truth  allows  each  of  them  to  form  such  as  it  desires.  .  .  .  We  do  not  guarantee 
any  State  against  punishment  if  it  misconducts  itself,  provided  that  punishment 
does  not  take  the  form  of  the  acquisition  of  territory  by  any  non- American 
Power." 

His  Excellency  the  German  Ambassador,  on  his  recent  return  from  Berlin, 
conveyed  personally  to  the  President  the  assurance  of  the  German  Emperor  that 
His  Majesty's  Government  had  no  purpose  or  intention  to  make  even  the 
smallest  acquisition  of  territory  on  the  South  American  Continent  or  the  islands 
adjacent.  This  voluntary  and  friendly  declaration  was  afterwards  repeated  to 
the  Secretary  of  State,  and  was  received  by  the  President  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  the  frank  and  cordial  spirit  in  which  it  was  offered.  In  the 
memorandum  of  the  11th  of  December,  His  Excellency  the  German  Ambassador 
repeats  these  assurances  as  follows:  "We  declare  especially  that  under  no  cir- 
cumstances do  we  consider  in  our  proceedings  the  acquisition  or  the  permanent 
occupation  of  Venezuelan  territory." 

In  the  said  memorandum  of  the  11th  of  December,  the  German  Government 
informs  that  of  the  United  States  that  it  has  certain  just  claims  for  money  and 
for  damages  wrongfully  withheld  from  German  subjects  by  the  Government  of 
Venezuela,  and  that  it  proposes  to  take  certain  coercive  measures  described  in 
the  memorandum  to  enforce  the  payment  of  these  just  claims. 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  appreciating  the  courtesy  of  the  German 
Government  in  making  him  acquainted  with  the  state  of  affairs  referred  to,  and 
not  regarding  himself  as  called  upon  to  enter  into  the  consideration  of  the  claims 
in  question,  believes  that  no  measures  will  be  taken  in  this  matter  by  the  agents  of 
the  German  Government  which  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  well-known  pur- 
pose, above  set  forth,  of  His  Majesty  the  German  Emperor.  i 


1  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1901,  vol.  1,  p.  195. 

22 


XI 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of  the  United  States,  1901-1909 
EXTRACT  FROM  THE  FOURTH  ANNUAL  MESSAGEi 
December  6,  1904 

It  is  not  true  that  the  United  States  feels  any  land  hunger  or  entertains 
any  projects  as  regards  the  other  nations  of  the  Western  Hemisphere  save  such 
as  are  for  their  welfare.  All  that  this  country  desires  is  to  see  the  neighboring 
countries  stable,  orderly,  and  prosperous.  Any  country  whose  people  conduct 
themselves  well  can  count  upon  our  hearty  friendship.  If  a  nation  shows  that  it 
knows  how  to  act  with  reasonable  efficiency  and  decency  in  social  and  political 
matters,  if  it  keeps  order  and  pays  its  obligations,  it  need  fear  no  interference 
from  the  United  States.  Chronic  wrong-doing,  or  an  impotence  which  results 
in  a  general  loosening  of  the  ties  of  civilized  society,  may  in  America,  as  else- 
where, ultimately  require  intervention  by  some  civilized  nation,  and  in  the  West- 
ern Hemisphere  the  adherence  of  the  United  States  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  may 
force  the  United  States,  however  reluctantly,  in  flagrant  cases  of  such  wrong- 
doing or  impotence,  to  the  exercise  of  an  international  police  power.  If  every 
country  washed  by  the  Caribbean  Sea  would  show  the  progress  in  stable  and  just 
civilization  which  with  the  aid  of  the  Piatt  amendment  Cuba  has  shown  since  our 
troops  left  the  island,  and  which  so  many  of  the  republics  in  both  Americas  are 
constantly  and  brilliantly  showing,  all  question  of  interference  by  this  nation  with 
their  affairs  would  be  at  an  end.  Our  interests  and  those  of  our  southern  neigh- 
bors are  in  reality  identical.  They  have  great  natural  riches,  and  if  within  their 
borders  the  reign  of  law  and  justice  obtains,  prosperity  is  sure  to  come  to  them. 
While  they  thus  obey  the  primary  laws  of  civilized  society  they  may  rest  assured 
that  they  will  be  treated  by  us  in  a  spirit  of  cordial  and  helpful  sympathy.  We 
would  interfere  with  them  only  in  the  last  resort,  and  then  only  if  it  became  evi- 
'dent  that  their  inability  or  unwillingness  to  do  justice  at  home  and  abroad  had 
violated  the  rights  of  the  United  States  or  had  invited  foreign  aggression  to  the 
detriment  of  the  entire  body  of  American  nations.  It  is  a  mere  truism  to  say 
that  every  nation,  whether  in  America  or  anywhere  else,  which  desires  to  main- 
tain its  freedom,  its  independence,  must  ultimately  realize  that  the  right  of  such 
independence  cannot  be  separated  from  the  responsibility  of  making  good  use 
of  it. 


1  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1904,  p.  xlL 

23 


c 
i 


{ 


XII 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  President  of  the  United  States 

EXTRACTS  FROM  SPECIAL  MESSAGE  TO  THE  SENATE^ 

February  15,  1905 

I  submit  herewith  a  protocoP  concluded  between  the  Dominican  RepubHc 
and  the  United  States. 

The  conditions  in  the  Republic  of  Santo  Domingo  have  been  growing  steadily 
worse  for  many  years.  There  have  been  many  disturbances  and  revolutions,  and 
debts  have  been  contracted  beyond  the  power  of  the  Republic  to  pay.  Some  of 
these  debts  were  properly  contracted  and  are  held  by  those  who  have  a  legitimate 
right  to  their  money.  Others  are  without  question  improper  or  exorbitant,  con- 
stituting claims  which  should  never  be  paid  in  full  and  perhaps  only  to  the  extent 
of  a  very  small  portion  of  their  nominal  value. 

Certain  foreign  countries  have  long  felt  themselves  aggrieved  because  of 
the  nonpayment  of  debts  due  their  citizens.  The  only  way  by  which  foreign 
creditors  could  ever  obtain  from  the  Republic  itself  any  guaranty  of  payment 
would  be  either  by  the  acquisition  of  territory  outright  or  temporarily,  or  else 
by  taking  possession  of  the  custom-houses,  which  would  of  course  in  itself  in 
effect,  be  taking  possession  of  a  certain  amount  of  territory. 

It  has  for  some  time  been  obvious  that  those  who  profit  by  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  must  accept  certain  responsibilities  along  with  the  rights  which  it  confers ; 
and  that  the  same  statement  applies  to  those  who  uphold  the  doctrine.  It  cannot 
be  too  often  and  too  emphatically  asserted  that  the  United  States  has  not  the 
slightest  desire  for  territorial  aggrandizement  at  the  expense  of  any  of  its  southern 
neighbors,  and  will  not  treat  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  an  excuse  for  such  aggran- 
dizement on  its  part.  We  do  not  propose  to  take  any  part  of  Santo  Domingo, 
or  exercise  any  other  control  over  the  island  save  what  is  necessary  to  its  financial 
rehabilitation  in  connection  with  the  collection  of  revenue,  part  of  which  will 
be  turned  over  to  the  Government  to  meet  the  necessary  expense  of  running  it, 
and  part  of  which  will  be  distributed  pro  rata  among  the  creditors  of  the  Republic 
upon  a  basis  of  absolute  equity.  The  justification  for  the  United  States  taking 
this  burden  and  incurring  this  responsibility  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  it  is 
incompatible  with  international  equity  for  the  United  States  to  refuse  to  allow 


"^Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1905,  pp.  334,  335,  336,  341,  342. 

2  The  protocol  accompanying  this  message  was  not  ratified.  Another  convention 
was  concluded  February  8,  1907,  ratification  was  advised  by  the  Senate,  February  25,  1907, 
and  ratifications  were  exchanged  July  8,  1907. 

24 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  25 

Other  Powers  to  take  the  only  means  at  their  disposal  of  satisfying  the  claims  of 
their  creditors  and  yet  to  refuse,  itself,  to  take  any  such  steps. 

An  aggrieved  nation  can  without  interfering  with  the  Monroe  Doctrine  take 
what  action  it  sees  fit  in  the  adjustment  of  its  disputes  with  American  States, 
provided  that  action  does  not  take  the  shape  of  interference  with  their  form  of 
government  or  of  the  despoilment  of  their  territory  under  any  disguise.  But, 
short  of  this,  when  the  question  is  one  of  a  money  claim,  the  only  way  which 
remains,  finally,  to  collect  it  is  a  blockade,  or  bombardment,  or  the  seizure  of  the 
custom-houses,  and  this  means,  as  has  been  said  above,  what  is  in  effect  a 
possession,  even  though  only  a  temporary  possession,  of  territory.  The  United 
States  then  becomes  a  party  in  interest,  because  under  the  Monroe  Doctrine  it 
cannot  see  any  European  Power  seize  and  permanently  occupy  the  territory  of 
one  of  these  Republics ;  and  yet  such  seizure  of  territory,  disguised  or  undisguised, 
may  eventually  offer  the  only  way  in  which  the  Power  in  question  can  collect  any 
debts,  unless  there  is  interference  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

One  of  the  difficult  and  increasingly  complicated  problems,  which  often  arise 
in  Santo  Domingo,  grows  out  of  the  violations  of  contracts  and  concessions, 
sometimes  improvidently  granted,  with  valuable  privileges  and  exemptions  stipu- 
lated for  upon  grossly  inadequate  considerations  which  were  burdensome  to  the 
State,  and  which  are  not  infrequently  disregarded  and  violated  by  the  governing 
authorities.  Citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  other  Governments  holding 
these  concessions  and  contracts  appeal  to  their  respective  Governments  for  active 
protection  and  intervention.  Except  for  arbitrary  wrong,  done  or  sanctioned  by 
superior  authority,  to  persons  or  to  vested  property  rights,  the  United  States 
Government,  following  its  traditional  usage  in  such  cases,  aims  to  go  no  further 
than  the  mere  use  of  its  good  offices,  a  measure  which  frequently  proves  ineffective. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  Governments  which  do  sometimes  take  energetic 
action  for  the  protection  of  their  subjects  in  the  enforcement  of  merely  contractual 
claims,  and  thereupon  American  concessionaries,  supported  by  powerful  influences, 
make  loud  appeal  to  the  United  States  Government  in  similar  cases  for  similar 
action.  They  complain  that  in  the  actual  posture  of  affairs  their  valuable  prop- 
erties are  practically  confiscated,  that  American  enterprize  is  paralyzed,  and  that 
unless  they  are  fully  protected,  even  by  the  enforcement  of  their  merely  con- 
tractual rights,  it  means  the  abandonment  to  the  subjects  of  other  Governments 
of  the  interests  of  American  trade  and  commerce  through  the  sacrifice  of  their 
investments  by  excessive  taxes  imposed  in  violation  of  contract,  and  by  other 
devices,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  output  of  their  mines  and  other  industries,  and 
even  of  their  railway  and  shipping  interests,  which  they  have  established  in  con- 
nection with  the  exploitation  of  their  concessions.  Thus  the  attempted  solution 
of  the  complex  problem  by  the  ordinary  methods  of  diplomacy  reacts  injuriously 
upon  the  United  States  Government  itself,  and  in  a  measure  paralyzes  the  action 
of  the  Executive  in  the  direction  of  a  sound  and  consistent  policy.    The  United 


2(i  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

States  Government  is  embarrassed  in  its  efforts  to  foster  American  enterprise 
and  the  growth  of  our  commerce  through  the  cultivation  of  friendly  relations 
with  Santo  Domingo,  by  the  irritating  effects  on  those  relations,  and  the  conse- 
quent injurious  influence  upon  that  commerce,  of  frequent  interventions.  As  a 
method  of  solution  of  the  complicated  problem  arbitration  has  become  nugatorj^,. 
inasmuch  as,  in  the  condition  of  its  finances,  an  award  against  the  Republic  is 
worthless  unless  its  payment  is  secured  by  the  pledge  of  at  least  some  portion  of 
the  customs  revenues.  This  pledge  is  ineffectual  without  actual  delivery  over 
of  the  custom-houses  to  secure  the  appropriation  of  the  pledged  revenues  to 
the  payment  of  the  award.  This  situation  again  reacts  injuriously  upon  the 
relations  of  the  United  States  with  other  nations.  For  when  an  award  and  such 
security  are  thus  obtained,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Santo  Domingo  Improvement 
Company,  some  foreign  Government  complains  that  the  award  conflicts  with  its 
rights,  as  a  creditor,  to  some  portion  of  these  revenues  under  an  alleged  prior 
pledge;  and  still  other  Governments  complain  that  an  award  in  any  considerable 
sum,  secured  by  pledges  of  the  customs  revenues,  is  prejudicial  to  the  payment 
of'  their  equally  meritorious  claims  out  of  the  ordinary  revenues ;  and  thus  contro- 
versies are  begotten  between  the  United  States  and  other  creditor  nations,  because 
of  the  apparent  sacrifice  of  some  of  their  claims,  which  may  be  just  or  may  be 
grossly  exaggerated,  but  which  the  United  States  Government  cannot  inquire 
into  without  giving  grounds  of  offense  to  other  friendly  creditor  nations.  Still 
further  illustrations  might  easily  be  furnished  of  the  hopelessness  of  the  present 
situation  growing  out  of  the  social  disorders  and  the  bankrupt  finances  of  the 
Dominican  Republic,  where  for  considerable  periods  during  recent  years  the 
bonds  of  civil  society  have  been  practically  dissolved. 

Under  the  accepted  .law  of  nations  foreign  Governments  are  within  their 
right,  if  they  choose  to  exercise  it,  when  they  actively  intervene  in  support  of  the 
contractual  claims  of  their  subjects.  They  sometimes  exercise  this  power,  and 
on  account  of  commercial  rivalries  there  is  a  growing  tendency  on  the  part  of 
other  Governments  more  and  more  to  aid  diplomatically  in  the  enforcement  of 
the  claims  of  their  subjects.  In  view  of  the  dilemma  in  which  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  is  thus  placed,  it  must  either  adhere  to  its  usual  attitude  of 
nonintervention  in  such  cases — an  attitude  proper  under  normal  conditions,  but 
one  which  in  this  particular  kind  of  case  results  to  the  disadvantage  of  its  citizens 
in  comparison  with  those  of  other  States — or  else  it  must,  in  order  to  be  consistent 
in  its  policy,  actively  intervene  to  protect  the  contracts  and  concessions  of  its 
citizens  engaged  in  agriculture,  commerce,  and  transportation  in  competition  with 
the  subjects  and  citizens  of  other  States.  This  course  would  render  the  United 
States  the  insurer  of  all  the  speculative  risks  of  its  citizens  in  the  public  securities 
and  franchises  of  Santo  Domingo. 

Under  the  plan  in  the  protocol  herewith  submitted  to  tjie  Senate,  insuring 
a  faithful  collection  and  application  of  the  revenues  to  the  specified  objects,  we 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  27 

are  well  assured  that  this  difficult  task  can  be  accomplished  with  the  friendly 
co-operation  and  good  will  of  all  the  parties  concerned,  and  to  the  great  relief 
of  the  Dominican  Republic. 

.  .  .  In  this  case,  fortunately,  the  prudent  and  far-seeing  statesmanship 
of  the  Dominican  Government  has  relieved  us  of  all  trouble.  At  their  request  we 
have  entered  into  the  agreement  herewith  submitted.  Under  it  the  custom-houses 
will  be  administered  peacefully,  honestly,  and  economically,  45  per  cent  of  the 
proceeds  being  turned  over  to  the  Dominican  Government  and  the  remainder 
being  used  by  the  United  States  to  pay  what  proportion  of  the  debts  it  is  possible 
to  pay  on  an  equitable  basis.  The  Republic  will  be  secured  against  over-seas 
aggression.  This  in  reality  entails  no  new  obligation  upon  us,  for  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  means  precisely  such  a  guaranty  on  our  part. 

It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  state  that  no  step  of  any  kind  has  been  taken 
by  the  Administration  under  the  terms  of  the  protocol  which  is  herewith  submitted. 

The  Republic  of  Santo  Domingo  has  by  this  protocol  wisely  and  patriotically 
accepted  the  responsibilities  as  well  as  the  privileges  of  liberty,  and  is  showing 
with  evident  good  faith  its  purpose  to  pay  all  that  its  resources  will  permit  of  its 
obligations.  More  than  this  it  cannot  do,  and  when  it  has  done  this  we  should 
not  permit  it  to  be  molested.  We  on  our  part  are  simply  performing  in  peaceful 
manner,  not  only  with  the  cordial  aquiescence,  but  in  accordance  with  the  earnest 
request  of  the  Government  concerned,  part  of  that  international  duty  which  is 
necessarily  involved  in  the  assertion  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  We  are  bound  to 
show  that  we  perform  this  duty  in  good  faith  and  without  any  intention  of 
aggrandizing  ourselves  at  the  expense  of  our  weaker  neighbors  or  of  conducting 
ourselves  otherwise  than  so  as  to  benefit  both  these  weaker  neighbors  and  those 
European  Powers  which  may  be  brought  into  contact  with  them.  It  is  in  the 
highest  degree  necessary  that  we  should  prove  by  our  action  that  the  world  may 
trust  in  our  good  faith  and  may  understand  that  this  international  duty  will  be 
performed  by  us  within  our  own  sphere,  in  the  interest  not  merely  of  ourselves, 
but  of  all  other  nations,  and  with  strict  justice  toward  all.  If  this  is  done,  a 
general  acceptance  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  will  in  the  end  surely  follow;  and 
this  will  mean  an  increase  of  the  sphere  in  which  peaceful  measures  for  the 
settlement  of  international  difficulties  gradually  displace  those  of  a  warlike 
character. 

We  can  point  with  just  pride  to  what  we  have  done  in  Cuba  as  a  guaranty 
of  our  good  faith.  We  stayed  in  Cuba  only  so  long  as  to  start  her  aright  on  the 
road  to  self-government,  which  she  has  since  trod  with  such  marked  and  distin- 
guished success ;  and  upon  leaving  the  island  we  exacted  no  conditions  save  such 
as  would  prevent  her  from  ever  becoming  the  prey  of  the  stranger.  Our  purpose 
in  Santo  Domingo  is  as  beneficent.  The  good  that  this  country  got  from  its 
action  in  Cuba  was  indirect  rather  than  direct.  So  it  is  as  regards  Santo  Domingo. 
The  chief  material  advantage  that  will  come  from  the  action  proposed  to  be  taken 
will  be  to  Santo  Domingo  itself  and  to  Santo  Domingo's  creditors.    The  advantages 


28  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

that  will  come  to  the  United  States  will  be  indirect,  but  nevertheless  great,  for 
it  is  supremely  to  our  interest  that  all  the  communities  immediately  south  of  us 
should  be  or  become  prosperous  and  stable,  and  therefore  not  merely  in  name, 
but  in  fact  independent  and  self-governing. 

I  call  attention  to  the  urgent  need  of  prompt  action  on  this  matter.  We  now 
have  a  great  opportunity  to  secure  peace  and  stability  in  the  island,  without  friction 
or  bloodshed,  by  acting  in  accordance  with  the  cordial  invitation  of  the  govern- 
mental authorities  themselves.  It  will  be  unfortunate  from  every  standpoint  if 
we  fail  to  grasp  this  opportunity ;  for  such  failure  will  probably  mean  increasing 
revolutionary  violence  in  Santo  Domingo,  and  very  possibly  embarrassing  foreign 
complications  in  addition.  This  protocol  affords  a  practical  test  of  the  efficiency 
of  the  United  States  Government  in  maintaining  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 


XIII 

Elihu  Root,  Secretary  of  State,  1905-1909,  United  States  Senator  from 

New  York,  1909-1915 

THE  REAL  MONROE  DOCTRINE^ 

Gdnti^emen  o^  the:  Association  : 

I  ask  your  attention  for  a  few  minutes  to  some  observations  upon  the 
Monroe  Doctrine.  If  I  am  justified  in  taking  your  time  it  will  be  not  because  I 
say  anything  novel,  but  because  there  is  occasion  for  restating  well  settled  matters 
which  seem  to  have  been  overlooked  in  some  recent  writings  on  the  subject. 

We  are  all  familiar  with  President  Monroe's  famous  message  of  December 
2,  1823. 

The  occasion  has  been  judged  proper  for  asserting  as  a  principle  in 
which  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States  are  involved,  that  the 
American  Continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condition  which  they 
have  assumed  and  maintain,  are  henceforth  not  to  be  considered  as  subjects 
for  future  colonization  by  any  European  Powers     .     .     . 

In  the  wars  of  the  European  Powers  in  matters  relating  to  themselves 
we  have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport  with  our  policy  to  do  so. 
It  is  only  when  our  rights  are  invaded  or  seriously  menaced  that  we  resent 
injuries  or  make  preparation  for  our  defense.  With  the  movements  in  this 
hemisphere  we  are  of  necessity  more  immediately  connected  and  by  causes 
which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened  and  impartial  observers. 

We  owe  it,  therefore,  to  candor,  and  to  the  amicable  relations  existing 
between  the  United  States  and  those  Powers,  to  declare  that  we  should 
consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their  system  to  any  portion 
of  this  hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety.  With  the  existing 
colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European  Power  we  have  not  interfered 
and  shall  not  interfere.  But  with  the  Governments  who  have  declared  their 
independence  and  maintained  it,  and  whose  independence  we  have  on  great 
consideration  and  on  just  principles,  acknowledged,  we  could  not  view  any 
interposition  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  them,  or  controlling  in  any  other 
manner,  their  destiny,  by  any  Eurooean  Power,  in  any  other  light  than  as 
the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the  United  States. 
In  the  war  between  these  new  Governments  and  Spain  we  declared  our 
neutrality  at  the  time  of  their  recognition,  and  to  this  we  have  adhered  and 
shall  continue  to  adhere,  provided  no  change  shall  occur  which,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  competent  authorities  of  this  Government,  shall  make  a 


^  Opening  Address,  as  President  of  the  American  Society  of  International  Law,  at  the 
Eighth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society,  in  Washington,  April  22,  1914. 

29 


30  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

corresponding  change  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  indispensable  to 
their  security.     .     .     . 

It  is  impossible  that  the  allied  Powers  should  extend  their  political 
system  to  any  portion  of  either  continent  without  endangering  our  peace  and 
happiness;  nor  can  any  one  believe  that  our  Southern  brethren,  if  left  to 
themselves,  would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord.  It  is  equally  impossible, 
therefore,  that  we  should  behold  such  interposition,  in  any  form,  with 
indifference. 

The  occasion  for  these  declarations  is  a  familiar  story — The  revolt  of  the 
Spanish  provinces  in  America  which  Spain,  unaided,  was  plainly  unable  to 
reduce  to  their  former  condition  of  dependence;  the  reaction  against  liberalism 
in  Europe  which  followed  the  downfall  of  Napoleon  and  the  restoration  of 
the  Bourbons  to  the  throne  of  France;  the  formation  of  the  Holy  Alliance;  the 
Agreement  of  its  members  at  the  Conferences  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  and  Laybach 
and  Verona  for  the  insurance  of  Monarchy  against  revolution;  the  restoration 
of  Ferdinand  the  Seventh  to  the  throne  of  Spain  by  the  armed  power  of  France 
pursuant  to  this  agreement ;  the  purpose  of  the  Alliance  to  follow  the  restoration 
of  monarchy  in  Spain  by  the  restoration  of  that  monarchy's  control  over  its 
colonies  in  the  New  World;  the  claims  both  of  Russia  and  of  Great  Britain  to 
rights  of  colonization  on  the  Northwest  coast;  the  proposals  of  Mr.  Canning  to 
Richard  Rush  for  a  joint  declaration  of  principles  by  England  and  the  United 
States  adverse  to  the  interference  of  any  other  European  Power  in  the  contest 
between  Spain  and  her  former  colonies;  the  serious  question  raised  by  this 
proposal  as  to  the  effect  of  a  joint  declaration  upon  the  American  policy  of 
avoiding  entangling  alliances. 

The  form  and  phrasing  of  President  Monroe's  message  were  adapted  to 
meet  these  conditions.  The  statements  made  were  intended  to  carry  specific 
information  to  the  members  of  the  Holy  Alliance  that  an  attempt  by  any  of 
them  to  coerce  the  new  States  of  South  America  would  be  not  a  simple  expedition 
against  weak  and  disunited  colonies,  but  the  much  more  difficult  and  expensive 
task  of  dealing  with  the  formidable  maritime  power  of  the  United  States  as 
well  as  the  opposition  of  England,  and  they  were  intended  to  carry  to  Russia 
and  incidentally  to  England  the  idea  that  rights  to  territory  in  the  New  World 
must  thenceforth  rest  upon  then  existing  titles,  and  that  the  United  States  would 
dispute  any  attempt  to  create  rights  to  territory  by  future  occupation. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  specific  occasions  for  the  declaration  of 
Monroe  no  longer  exist.  The  Holy  Alliance  long  ago  disappeared.  The  nations 
of  Europe  no  longer  contemplate  the  vindication  of  monarchical  principles  in  the 
territory  of  the  New  World.  France,  the  most  active  of  the  Allies,  is  herself  a 
republic.  No  nation  longer  asserts  the  right  of  colonization  in  America.  The 
general  establishment  of  diplomatic  relations  between  the  Powers  of  Europe  and 
the  American  republics,  if  not  already  universal,  became  so  when,  pursuant  to 
the  formal  assent  of  the  Powers,  all  the  American  republics  were  received  into 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  31 

the  Second  Conference  at  The  Hague  and  joined  in  the  conventions  there  made, 
upon  the  footing  of  equal  sovereignty,  entitled  to  have  their  territory  and  inde- 
pendence respected  under  that  law  of  nations  which  formerly  existed  for  Europe 
alone. 

The  declaration,  however,  did  more  than  deal  with  the  specific  occasion 
which  called  it  forth.  It  was  intended  to  declare  a  general  principle  for  the 
future,  and  this  is  plain  not  merely  from  the  generality  of  the  terms  used  but 
from  the  discussions  out  of  which  they  arose  and  frpm  the  understanding  of  the 
men  who  took  part  in  the  making  and  of  their  successors. 

When  Jefferson  was  consulted  by  President  Monroe  before  the  message 
was  sent  he  replied : 

The  question  presented  by  the  letters  you  have  sent  me  is  the  most 
momentous  which  has  ever  been  offered  to  my  contemplation  since  that  of 
independence.  That  made  us  a  nation ;  this  sets  our  compass  and  points  the 
course  which  we  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time  opening  on  us.  And 
never  could  we  embark  upon  it  under  circumstances  more  auspicious.  Our 
first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never  to  entangle  ourselves  in  the 
broils  of  Europe;  our  second,  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with 
cisatlantic  affairs. 

Three  years  later  Daniel  Webster  declared  that  the  Doctrine  involved  the 
honor  of  the  country.    He  said  in  the  House  of  Representatives : 

I  look  upon  it  as  a  part  of  its  treasures  of  reputation;  and,  for  one,  I 
intend  to  guard  it.  ...  I  will  neither  help  to  erase  it  or  tear  it  out; 
nor  shall  it  be,  by  any  act  of  mine,  blurred  or  blotted.  It  did  honor  to  the 
sagacity  of  the  Government,  and  will  not  diminish  that  honor. 

Mr.  Cleveland  said  in  his  Message  of  December  17,  1895 : 

The  doctrine  upon  which  we  stand  is  strong  and  sound  because  its  en- 
forcement is  important  to  our  peace  and  safety  as  a  nation,  and  is  essential 
to  the  integrity  of  our  free  institutions  and  the  tranquil  maintenance  of  our 
distinctive  form  of  government.  It  was  intended  to  apply  to  every  stage  of 
our  national  life  and  cannot  become  obsolete  while  our  republic  endures. 

As  the  particular  occasions  which  called  it  forth  have  slipped  back  into 
history,  the  declaration  itself,  instead  of  being  handed  over  to  the  historian, 
has  grown  continually  a  more  vital  and  insistent  rule  of  conduct  for  each 
succeeding  generation  of  Americans.  Never  for  a  moment  have  the  responsible 
and  instructed  statesmen  in  charge  of  the  foreign  affairs  of  the  United  States 
failed  to  consider  themselves  bound  to  insist  upon  its  policy.  Never  once  has 
the  public  opinion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  failed  to  support  every  just 
application  of  it  as  new  occasion  has  arisen.  Almost  every  President  and  Secre- 
tary of  State  has  restated  the  Doctrine  with  vigor  and  emphasis  in  the  discussion 
of  the  diplomatic  affairs  of  his  day.  The  Governments  of  Europe  have  gradually 
come  to  realize  that  the  existence  of  the  policy  which  Monroe  declared  is  a 


32  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Stubborn  and  continuing  fact  to  be  recognized  in  their  controversies  with  American 
countries.  We  have  seen  Spain,  France,  England,  Germany,  with  admirable  good 
sense  and  good  temper,  explaining  beforehand  to  the  United  States  that  they 
intended  no  permanent  occupation  of  territory,  in  the  controversy  with  Mexico 
forty  years  after  the  declaration,  and  in  the  controversy  with  Venezuela  eighty 
years  after.  In  1903  the  Duke  of  Devonshire  declared  "Great  Britain  accepts 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  unreservedly."  Mr.  Hay  coupled  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
and  the  Golden  Rule  as  cardinal  guides  of  American  diplomacy.  Twice  within 
very  recent  years  the  whole  treaty-making  power  of  the  United  States  has  given 
its  formal  approval  to  the  policy  by  the  reservations  in  the  signature  and  in 
the  ratification  of  the  arbitration  conventions  of  the  Hague  Conferences,  expressed 
in  these  words  by  the  Senate  resolution  agreeing  to  ratification  of  the  Convention 
of  1907 : 

Nothing  contained  in  this  convention  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require 
the  United  States  of  America  to  depart  from  its  traditional  policy  of  not 
intruding  upon,  interfering  with,  or  entangling  itself  in  the  political  questions 
of  policy  or  internal  administration  of  any  foreign  State,  nor  shall  anything 
contained  in  the  said  convention  be  construed  to  imply  a  relinquishment  by 
the  United  States  of  its  traditional  attitude  towards  purely  American 
questions. 

It  seems  fair  to  assume  that  a  policy  with  such  a  history  as  this  has  some 
continuing  and  substantial  reason  underlying  it;  that  it  is  not  outworn  or 
meaningless  or  a  purely  formal  relic  of  the  past,  and  it  seems  worth  while  to 
consider  carefully  what  the  Doctrine  is  and  what  it  is  not. 

No  one  ever  pretended  that  Mr.  Monroe  was  declaring  a  rule  of  international 
law  or  that  the  Doctrine  which  he  declared  has  become  international  law.  It  is 
a  declaration  of  the  United  States  that  certain  acts  would  be  injurious  to  the 
peace  and  safety  of  the  United  States  and  that  the  United  States  would  regard 
them  as  unfriendly.  The  declaration  does  not  say  what  the  course  of  the  United 
States  will  be  in  case  such  acts  are  done.  That  is  left  to  be  determined  in  each 
particular  instance.  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  in  the  Senate  debate  on  the  Yucatan  Bill, 
in  1848: 

Whether  you  will  resist  or  not  and  the  measure  of  your  resistance — 
whether  it  shall  be  by  negotiation,  remonstrance,  or  some  intermediate 
measure  or  by  a  resort  to  arms;  all  this  must  be  determined  and  decided 
on  the  merits  of  the  question  itself.  This  is  the  only  wise  course.  .  .  . 
There  are  cases  .of  interposition  where  I  would  resort  to  the  hazard  of  war 
with  all  its  calamities.  Am  I  asked  for  one?  I  will  answer.  I  designate 
the  case  of  Cuba. 

In  particular  instances  indeed  the  course  which  the  United  States  would 
follow  has  been  very  distinctly  declared,  as  when  Mr.  Seward  said,  in  1865 : 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  33 

It  has  been  the  President's  purpose  that  France  should  be  respectfully 
informed  upon  two  points;  namely,  first,  that  the  United  States  earnestly 
desire  to  continue  and  to  cuhivate  sincere  friendship  with  France.  Secondly, 
that  this  policy  would  be  brought  in  imminent  jeopardy  unless  France  could 
deem  it  consistent  with  her  honor  to  desist  from  the  prosecution  of  armed 
intervention  in  Mexico  to  overthrow  the  domestic  republican  Government 
existing  there  and  to  establish  upon  its  ruins  the  foreign  monarchy  which 
has  been  attempted  to  be  inaugurated  in  the  capital  of  that  country. 

So  Secretary  Buchanan  said,  in  1848 : 

The  highest  and  first  duty  of  every  Independent  nation  is  to  provide 
for  its  own  safety;  and  acting  upon  this  principle,  we  should  be  compelled 
to  resist  the  acquisition  of  Cuba  by  any  powerful  maritime  State,  with  all 
means  which  Providence  has  placed  at  our  command. 

And  Secretary  Clayton  said,  in  1849 : 

The  news  of  the  cession  of  Cuba  to  any  foreign  Power  would  in  the 
United  States  be  the  instant  signal  for  war.  No  foreign  Power  would 
attempt  to  take  it  that  did  not  expect  a  hostile  collision  with  us  as  an  in- 
evitable consequence. 

The  Doctrine  is  not  international  law  but  it  rests  upon  the  right  of  self 
protection  and  that  right  is  recognized  by  international  law.  The  right  is  a 
necessary  corollary  of  independent  sovereignty.  It  is  well  understood  that  the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  self  protection  may  and  frequently  does  extend  in  its 
eflfect  beyond  the  limits  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  State  exercising  it. 
The  strongest  example  probably  would  be  the  mobilization  of  an  army  by  another 
Power  immediately  across  the  frontier.  Every  act  done  by  the  other  Power 
may  be  within  its  own  territory.  Yet  the  country  threatened  by  the  state  of 
facts  is  justified  in  protecting  itself  by  immediate  war.  The  most  common 
exercise  of  the  right  of  self  protection  outside  of  a  State's  own  territory  and 
in  time  of  peace  is  the  interposition  of  objection  to  the  occupation  of  territory, 
of  points  of  strategic  military  or  maritime  advantage,  or  to  indirect  accomplish- 
ment of  this  effect  by  dynastic  arrangement.  For  example,  the  objection  of 
England  in  1911  to  the  occupation  of  a  naval  station  by  Germany  on  the  Atlantic 
Coast  of  Morocco;  the  objection  of  the  European  Powers  generally  to  the  vast 
force  of  Russia  extending  its  territory  to  the  Mediterranean;  the  revision  of 
the  Treaty  of  San  Stef ano  by  the  Treaty  of  Berlin ;  the  establishment  of  buffer 
States;  the  objection  to  the  succession  of  a  German  prince  to  the  throne  of 
Spain;  the  many  forms  of  the  eastern  question;  the  centuries  of  struggle  to 
preserve  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe ;  all  depend  upon  the  very  same  principle 
which  underlies  the  Monroe  Doctrine;  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  right  of  every 
sovereign  State  to  protect  itself  by  preventing  a  condition  of  affairs  in  which 


34  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

it  will  be  too  late  to  protect  itself.  Of  course  each  State  must  judge  for  itself 
when  a  threatened  act  will  create  such  a  situation.  If  any  State  objects  to  a 
threatened  act  and  the  reasonableness  of  its  objection  is  not  assented  to,  the 
efficacy  of  the  objection  will  depend  upon  the  power  behind  it. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  in  the  adherence  of  the  American  people  to  the 
original  declaration  there  was  a  great  element  of  sentiment  and  of  sympathy 
for  the  people  of  South  America  who  were  struggling  for  freedom,  and  it  has 
been  a  source  of  great  satisfaction  to  the  United  States  that  the  course  which 
it  took  in  1823  concurrently  with  the  action  of  Great  Britain  played  so  great  a 
part  in  assuring  the  right  of  self  government  to  the  countries  of  South  America. 
Yet  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  reference  to  the  South  American  Governments  as 
in  all  other  respects,  the  international  right  upon  which  the  declaration  expressly 
rests  is  not  sentiment  or  sympathy  or  a  claim  to  dictate  what  kind  of  government 
any  other  country  shall  have,  but  the  safety  of  the  United  States.  It  is  because 
the  new  Governments  cannot  be  overthrown  by  the  allied  Powers  "without 
endangering  our  peace  and  happiness";  that  "the  United  States  cannot  behold 
such  interposition  in  any  form  with  indifference." 

We  frequently  see  statements  that  the  Doctrine  has  been  changed  or  enlarged ; 
that  there  is  a  new  or  different  Doctrine  since  Monroe's  time.  They  are  mistaken. 
There  has  been  no  change.  One  apparent  extension  of  the  statement  of  Monroe 
was  made  by  President  Polk  in  his  messages  of  1845  and  1848,  when  he  included 
the  acquisition  of  territory  by  a  European  Power  through  cession  as  dangerous 
to  the  safety  of  the  United  States.  It  was  really  but  stating  a  corollary  to  the 
Doctrine  of  1823  and  asserting  the  same  right  of  self-protection  against  the  other 
American  States  as  well  as  against  Europe. 

This  corollary  has  been  so  long  and  uniformly  agreed  to  by  the  Government 
and  the  people  of  the  United  States  that  it  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  being  now 
a  part  of  the  Doctrine. 

But,  all  assertions  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  there  has  been  no  other 
change  or  enlargement  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  since  it  was  first  promulgated. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  not  everything  said  or  written  by  secretaries  of  state 
or  even  by  presidents  constitutes  a  national  policy  or  can  enlarge  or  modify  or 
diminish  a  national  policy. 

It  is  the  substance  of  the  thing  to  which  the  nation  holds  and  that  is  and 
always  has  been  that  the  safety  of  the  United  States  demands  that  American 
territory  shall  remain  American. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  assert  or  imply  or  involve  any  right  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  impair  or  control  the  independent  sovereignty  of 
any  American  State.  In  the  lives  of  nations  as  of  individuals,  there  are  many 
rights  unquestioned  and  universally  conceded.     The  assertion  of  any  particular 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  35 

right  must  be  considered,  not  as  excluding  all  others  but  as  coincident  with  all 
others  which  are  not  inconsistent.  The  fundamental  principle  of  international 
law  is  the  principle  of  independent  sovereignty.  Upon  that  all  other  rules  of 
international  law  rest.  That  is  the  chief  and  necessary  protection  of  the  weak 
against  the  power  of  the  strong.  Observance  of  that  is  the  necessary  condition 
to  the  peace  and  order  of  the  civilized  world.  By  the  declaration  of  that  principle 
the  common  judgment  of  civilization  awards  to  the  smallest  and  weakest  State 
the  liberty  to  control  its  own  affairs  without  interference  from  any  other  power, 
however  great. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  infringe  upon  that  right.  It  asserts  the  right. 
The  declaration  of  Monroe  was  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States 
were  involved  in  maintaining  a  condition,  and  the  condition  to  be  maintained  was 
the  independence  of  all  the  American  countries.  It  is  "the  free  and  independent 
condition  which  they  have  assumed  and  maintained"  which  is  declared  to  render 
them  not  subject  to  future  colonization.  It  is  "the  Governments  who  have  de- 
clared their  independence  and  maintained  it  and  whose  independence  we  have 
on  great  consideration  and  on  just  principles  acknowledged"  that  are  not  to 
be  interfered  with.  When  Mr.  Canning's  proposals  for  a  joint  declaration  were 
under  consideration  by  the  Cabinet  in  the  month  before  the  famous  message  was 
sent,  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  played  the  major-  part  in  forming  the  policy, 
declared  the  basis  of  it  in  these  words : 

Considering  the  South  Americans  as  independent  nations,  they  them- 
selves and  no  other  nation  had  the  right  to  dispose  of  their  condition.  We 
have  no  right  to  dispose  of  them  either  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  other 
nations.  Neither  have  any  other  nations  the  right  of  disposing  of  them 
without  their  consent. 

In  the  most  critical  and  momentous  application  of  the  Doctrine  Mr.  Seward 
wrote  to  the  French  Minister : 

France  need  not  for  a  moment  delay  her  promised  withdrawal  of  military 
forces  from  Mexico  and  her  putting  the  principle  of  non-intervention  into 
full  and  complete  practice  in  regard  to  Mexico  through  any  apprehension 
that  the  United  States  will  prove  unfaithful  to  the  principles  and  policy  in 
that  respect  which  on  their  behalf  it  has  been  my  duty  to  maintain  in  this 
now  very  lengthened  correspondence.  The  practice  of  this  Government 
from  its  beginning  is  a  guarantee  to  all  nations  of  the  respect  of  the  American 
people  for  the  free  sovereignty  of  the  people  in  every  other  State.  We 
received  the  instruction  from  Washington.  We  applied  it  sternly  in  our  early 
intercourse  even  with  France.  The  same  principle  and  practice  have  been 
uniformly  inculcated  by  all  our  statesmen,  interpreted  by  all  our  jurists, 
maintained  by  all  our  Congresses,  and  acquiesced  in  without  practical  dissent 
on  all  occasions  by  the  American  people.  It  is  in  reality  the  chief  element 
of  foreign  intercourse  in  our  history. 


36  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

In  his  message  to  Congress  of  December  3,  1906,  President  Roosevelt' said : 

In  many  parts  of  South  America  there  has  been  much  misunderstanding 
of  the  attitude  and  purposes  of  the  United  States  toward  the  other  American 
RepubUcs.  An  idea  had  become  prevalent  that  our  assertion  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  implied  or  carried  with  it  an  assumption  of  superiority  and  of  a 
right  to  exercise  some  kind  of  protectorate  over  the  countries  to  whose 
territory  that  Doctrine  applies.    Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth. 

He  quoted  the  words  of  the  Secretary  of  State  then  in  office  to  the  recent 
Pan  American  Conference  at  Rio  Janeiro: 

We  deem  the  independence  and  equal  rights  of  the  smallest  and  weakest 
member  of  the  family  of  nations  entitled  to  as  much  respect  as  those  of  the 
greatest  empire  and  we  deem  the  observance  of  that  respect  the  chief 
guaranty  of  the  weak  against  the  oppression  of  the  strong.  We  neither  claim 
nor  desire  any  rights  or  privileges  or  powers  that  we  do  not  freely  concede 
to  every  American  Republic. 

And  the  President  then  proceeded  to  say  of  these  statements : 

They  have  my  hearty  approval,  as  I  am  sure  they  will  have  yours,  and 
I  cannot  be  wrong  in  the  conviction  that  they  correctly  represent  the  senti- 
ments of  the  whole  American  people.  I  cannot  better  characterize  the  true 
attitude  of  the  United  States  in  its  assertion  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  than  in 
the  words  of  the  distinguished  former  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  Argen- 
tina, Doctor  Drago  .  .  .  the  traditional  policy  of  the  United  States 
without  accentuating  superiority  or  seeking  preponderance  condemned  the 
oppression  of  the  nations  of  this  part  of  the  world  and  the  control  of  their 
destinies  by  the  great  Powers  of  Europe. 

Curiously  enough,  many  incidents  and  consequences  of  that  independent 
condition  itself  which  the  United  States  asserted  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine  have 
been  regarded  in  some  quarters  as  infringements  upon  independence  resulting 
from  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Just  as  the  personal  rights  of  each  individual  free 
citizen  in  the  State  are  limited  by  the  equal  rights  of  every  other  free  individual 
in  the  same  State,  so  the  sovereign  rights  of  each  independent  State  are  limited 
by  the  equal  sovereign  rights  of  every  other  independent  State.  These  limitations 
are  not  impairments  of  independent  sovereignty.  They  are  the  necessary  con- 
ditions to  the  existence  of  independent  sovereignty.  If  the  Monroe  Doctrine  had 
never  been  declared  or  thought  of,  the  sovereign  rights  of  each  American  republic 
would  have  been  limited  by  the  equal  sovereign  rights  of  every  other  American 
republic,  including  the  United  States.  The  United  States  would  have  had  a  right 
to  demand  from  every  other  American  State  observance  of  treaty  obligations  and 
of  the  rules  of  international  law.  It  would  have  had  the  right  to  insist  upon  due 
protection  for  the  lives  and  property  of  its  citizens  within  the  territory  of  every 
other  American  State,  and  upon  the  treatment  of  its  citizens  in  that  territory 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  37 

according  to  the  rules  of  international  law.  The  United  States  would  have  had 
the  right  as  against  every  other  American  State  to  object  to  acts  which  the  United 
States  might  deem  injurious  to  its  peace  and  safety  just  as  it  had  the  right  to 
object  to  such  acts  as  against  any  European  Power  and  just  as  all  European 
and  American  Powers  have  the  right  to  object  to  such  acts  as  against  each  other. 
All  these  rights  which  the  United  States  would  have  had  as  against  other  American 
States  it  has  now.  They  are  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affected  by  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  They  exist  now  just  as  they  would  have  existed  if  there  had  been  no 
Monroe  Doctrine.  They  are  neither  greater  nor  less  because  of  that  Doctrine. 
They  are  not  rights  of  superiority,  they  are  rights  of  equality.  They  are  the 
rights  which  all  equal  independent  States  have  as  against  each  other.  And  they 
cover  the  whole  range  of  peace  and  war. 

It  happens,  however,  that  the  United  States  is  very  much  bigger  and  more 
powerful  than  most  of  the  other  American  Republics.  And  when  a  very  great 
and  powerful  State  makes  demands  upon  a  very  small  and  weak  State  it  is 
difficult  to  avoid  a  feeling  that  there  is  an  assumption  of  superior  authority  in- 
volved in  the  assertion  of  superior  power,  even  though  the  demand  be  based 
solely  upon  the  right  of  equal  against  equal.  An  examination  of  the  various 
controversies  which  the  United  States  has  had  with  other  American  Powers 
will  disclose  the  fact  that  in  every  case  the  rights  asserted  were  rights  not  of 
superiority  but  of  equality.  Of  course  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  great  and 
powerful  States  shall  forego  their  just  rights  against  srnaller  and  less  powerful 
States.  The  responsibilities  of  sovereignty  attach  to  the  weak  as  well  as  to  the 
strong,  and  a  claim  to  exemption  from  those  responsibilities  would  imply  not 
equality  but  inferiority.  The  most  that  can  be  said  concerning  a  question  between 
a  powerful  State  and  a  weak  one  is  that  the  great  State  ought  to  be  especially 
considerate  and  gentle  in  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  its  position;  ought 
always  to  base  its  acts  not  upon  a  superiority  of  force,  but  upon  reason  and  law ; 
and  ought  to  assert  no  rights  against  a  small  State  because  of  its  weakness  which 
it  would  not  assert  against  a  great  State  notwithstanding  its  power.  But  in  all 
this  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  not  concerned  at  all. 

The  scope  of  the  Doctrine  is  strictly  limited.  It  concerns  itself  only  with 
the  occupation  of  territory  in  the  New  World  to  the  subversion  or  exclusion  of 
a  preexisting  American  Government.  It  has  not  otherwise  any  relation  to  the 
affairs  of  either  American  or  European  States.  In  good  conduct  or  bad,  observ- 
ance of  rights  or  violations  of  them,  agreement  or  controversy,  injury  or  reprisal, 
coercion  or  war,  the  United  States  finds  no  warrant  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine  for 
interference.     So  Secretary  Cass  wrote,  in  1858: 

With  respect  to  the  causes  of  war  between  Spain  and  Mexico,  the  United 
States  have  no  concern,  and  do  not  undertake  to  judge  them.  Nor  do  they 
claim  to  interpose  in  any  hostilities  which  may  take  place.  Their  policy  of 
observation  and  interference  is  limited  to  the  permanent  subjugation  of  any 


38  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

portion  of  the  territory  of  Mexico,  or  of  any  other  American  State  to  any 
European  Power  whatever. 

So  Mr.  Seward  wrote,  in  1861,  concerning  the  aUied  operation  against 
Mexico : 

As  the  undersigned  has  heretofore  had  the  honor  to  inform  each  of 
the  plenipotentiaries  now  addressed,  the  President  does  not  feel  at  liberty 
to  question,  and  does  not  question,  that  the  sovereigns  represented  have 
undoubted  right  to  decide  for  themselves  the  fact  whether  they  have  sus- 
tained grievances,  and  to  resort  to  war  against  Mexico  for  the  redress  thereof, 
and  have  a  right  also  to  levy  the  war  severally  or  jointly. 

So  when  Germany,  Great  Britain  and  Italy  united  to  compel  by  naval  force  a 
response  to  their  demands  on  the  part  of  Venezuela  and  the  German  Government 
advised  the  United  States  that  it  proposed  to  take  coercive  measures  to  enforce 
its  claims  for  damages  and  for  money  against  Venezuela,  adding,  "We  declare 
especially  that  under  no  circumstances  do  we  consider  in  our  proceedings  the 
acquisition  or  permanent  occupation  of  Venezuelan  territory,"  Mr.  Hay  replied : 

That  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  although  it  "regretted  that 
European  Powers  should  use  force  against  Central  and  South  American 
countries,  could  not  object  to  their  taking  steps  to  obtain  redress  for  injuries 
suffered  by  their  subjects,  provided  that  no  acquisition  of  territory  was 
contemplated." 

Quite  independently  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  however,  there  is  a  rule  of 
conduct  among  nations  under  which  each  nation  is  deemed  bound  to  render  the 
good  offices  of  friendship  to  the  others  when  they  are  in  trouble.  The  rule  has 
been  crystallized  in  the  provisions  of  the  Hague  Convention  for  the  pacific  settle- 
ment of  international  disputes.  Under  the  head  of  "The  Maintenance  of  General 
Peace"  in  that  Convention  substantially  all  the  Powers  of  the  world  have  agreed : 

With  a  view  to  obviating  as  far  as  possible  recourse  to  force  in  the 
relations  between  States,  the  contracting  Powers  agree  to  use  their  best 
efforts  to  ensure  the  pacific  settlement  of  international  differences. 

In  case  of  serious  disagreement  or  dispute,  before  an  appeal  to  arms,  the 
contracting  Powers  agree  to  have  recourse,  as  far  as  circumstances  allow,  to 
the  good  offices  or  mediation  of  one  or  more  friendly  Powers. 

Independently  of  this  recourse,  the  contracting  Powers  deem  it  expedient 
and  desirable  that  one  or  more  Powers,  strangers  to  the  dispute,  should,  on 
their  own  initiative  and  as  far  as  circumstances  may  allow,  offer  their  good 
offices  or  mediation  to  the  States  at  variance  .  .  .  The  exercise  of  this 
right  can  never  be  regarded  by  either  of  the  parties  in  dispute  as  an 
unfriendly  act. 

The  part  of  the  mediator  consists  in  reconciling  the  opposing  claims  and 
appeasing  the  feelings  of  resentment  which  may  have  arisen  between  the 
States  at  variance. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  39 

The  United  States  has  frequently  performed  this  duty  in  controversies  between 
American  Repubhcs  among  themselves  and  between  American  Republics  and 
European  States.  So  in  the  controversy  last  referred  to,  the  United  States  used 
its  good  offices  to  bring  about  a  series  of  arbitrations  which  superseded  the 
resort  to  force  determined  upon  by  the  allied  Powers  against  Venezuela.  She  did 
this  upon  the  request  of  Venezuela.  She  did  it  in  the  performance  of  no  duty 
and  the  exercise  of  no  right  whatever  except  the  duty  and  the  right  of  friendship 
between  equal  sovereign  States.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  acts  of  this  description ;  yet  many  times  censorious  critics,  unfamiliar 
with  the  facts  and  uninstructed  in  the  customs  and  rules  of  action  of  the  inter- 
national world,  have  accused  the  United  States  in  such  cases  of  playing  the  role 
of  school  master,  of  assuming  the  superiority  of  guardianship,  of  aiming, at  a 
protectorate. 

As  the  Monroe  Doctrine  neither  asserts  nor  involves  any  right  of  control  by 
the  United  States  over  any  American  nation,  it  imposes  upon  the  United  States 
no  duty  towards  European  Powers  to  exercise  such  a  control.  It  does  not  call 
upon  the  United  States  to  collect  debts  or  coerce  conduct  or  redress  wrongs  or 
revenge  injuries.  If  matters  ever  come  to  a  point  where  in  any  American  country 
the  United  States  intervenes  by  force  to  prevent  or  end  an  occupation  of  territory 
to  the  subversion  or  exclusion  of  an  American  Government,  doubtless  new 
rights  and  obligations  will  arise  as  a  result  of  the  acts  done  in  the  course  of  the 
intervention.  Unless  such  a  situation  shall  have  arisen  there  can  be  no  duty  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  beyond  the  exercise  of  good  offices  as  between 
equal  and  independent  nations. 

There  are  indeed  special  reasons  why  the  United  States  should  perform  that 
duty  of  equal  friendship  to  the  full  limit  of  international  custom  and  international 
ethics  as  declared  in  the  Hague  Convention,  whenever  occasion  arises  in  contro- 
versy between  American  and  European  Powers.  There  is  a  motive  for  that  in 
the  special  sympathy  and  friendship  for  the  gradually  developing  republics  of  the 
south  which  the  American  people  have  always  felt  since  the  days  of  Monroe 
and  John  Quincy  Adams  and  Richard  Rush  and  Henry  Clay.  There  is  a  motive 
in  the  strong  desire  of  our  Government  that  no  controversy  between  a  European 
and  an  American  State  shall  ever  come  to  the  point  where  the  United  States  may 
be  obliged  to  assert  by  force  the  rule  of  national  safety  declared  by  Monroe. 
And  there  is  a  motive  in  the  proper  desire  of  the  United  States  that  no  friendly 
nation  of  Europe  or  America  shall  be  injured  or  hindered  in  the  prosecution  of 
its  rights  in  any  way  or  to  any  extent  that  can  possibly  be  avoided  because  that 
nation  respects  the  rule  of  safety  which  Mr.  Monroe  declared  and  we  maintain. 
None  of  these  reasons  for  the  exercise  of  the  good  offices  of  equality  justifies 
nor  do  all  of  them  together  justify  the  United  States  in  infringing  upon  the 
independence  or  ignoring  the  equal  rights  of  the  smallest  American  State. 

Nor  has  the  United  States  ever  in  any  instance  during  the  period  of  almost 


40  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

a  century  which  has  elapsed,  made  the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  the  motives  which 
lead  us  to  support  it  the  ground  or  excuse  for  overstepping  the  limits  which  the 
rights  of  equal  sovereignty  set  between  equal  sovereign  States. 

Since  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  a  declaration  based  upon  this  nation's  right 
of  self  protection,  it  cannot  be  transmuted  into  a  joint  or  common  declaration 
by  American  States  or  any  number  of  them.  If  Chile  or  Argentina  or  Brazil 
were  to  contribute  the  weight  of  her  influence  toward  a  similar  end,  the  right 
upon  which  that  nation  would  rest  its  declaration  would  be  its  own  safety,  not 
the  safety  of  the  United  States.  Chile  would  declare  what  was  necessary  for 
^the  safety  of  Chile.  Argentina  would  declare  what  was  necessary  for  the  safety 
of  Argentina.  Brazil,  what  was  necessary  for  the  safety  of  Brazil.  Each  natioa 
would  act  for  itself  and  in  its  own  right  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  go  beyond 
that  except  by  more  or  less  offensive  and  defensive  alliances.  Of  course  such 
alliances  are  not  to  be  considered. 

It  is  plain  that  the.  building  of  the  Panama  Canal  greatly  accentuates  the 
practical  necessity  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  as  it  applies  to  all  the  territory  sur- 
rounding the  Caribbean  or  near  the  Bay  of  Panama.  The  plainest  lessons  of 
history  and  the  universal  judgment  of  all  responsible  students  of  the  subject 
concur  in  teaching  that  the  potential  command  of  the  route  to  and  from  the 
Canal  must  rest  with  the  United  States  and  that  the  vital  interests  of  the  nation 
forbid  that  such  command  shall  pass  into  other  hands.  Certainly  no  nation  which 
has  acquiesced  in  the  British  occupation  of  Egypt  will  dispute  this  proposition. 
Undoubtedly  as  one  passes  to  the  south  and  the  distance  from  the  Caribbean 
increases,  the  necessity  of  maintaining  the  rule  of  Monroe  becomes  less  immediate 
and  apparent.  But  who  is  competent  to  draw  the  line  ?  Who  will  say,  "To  this 
point  the  rule  of  Monroe  should  apply ;  beyond  this  point,  it  should  not  ?"  Who 
will  say  that  a  new  national  force  created  beyond  any  line  that  he  can  draw  will 
stay  beyond  it  and  will  not  in  the  long  course  of  time  extend  itself  indefinitely? 

The  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  the  immediate  proximity  of  hostile 
forces  was  not  the  sole  consideration  leading  to  the  declaration.  The  need  to 
separate  the  influences  determining  the  development  and  relation  of  States  in 
the  New  World  from  the  influences  operating  in  Europe  played  an  even  greater 
part.  The  familiar  paragraphs  of  Washington's  Farewell  Address  upon  this 
subject  were  not  rhetoric.  They  were  intensely  practical  rules  of  conduct  for 
the  future  guidance  of  the  country. 

Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have  none  or  a 
very  remote  relation.  Hence,  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  controversies, 
the  causes  of  which  are  essentially  foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence,  there- 
fore, it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves,  by  artificial  ties,  in  the 
ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  politics,  or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  col- 
lisions of  her  friendships  or  enmities.  Our  detached  and  distant  situation 
invites  and  enables  us  to  pursue  a  different  course. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  41 

It  was  the  same  instinct  which  led  Jefferson,  in  the  letter  to  Monroe  already 
quoted,  to  say: 

Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never  to  entangle  ourselves 
in  the  broils  of  Europe;  our  second,  never  to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle 
with  cisatlantic  affairs. 

The  concurrence  of  Washington  and  Hamilton  and  Jefferson  in  the  decla- 
ration of  this  principle  of  action  entitles  it  to  great  respect.  They  recalled  the 
long  period  during  which  every  war  waged  in  Europe  between  European  Powers 
and  arising  from  European  causes  of  quarrel  was  waged  also  in  the  New  World. 
English  and  French  and  Spanish  and  Dutch  killed  and  harried  each  other  in 
America,  not  because  of  quarrels  between  the  settlers  in  America  but  because 
of  quarrels  between  the  European  Powers  having  dominion  over  them.  Separation 
of  influences  as  absolute  and  complete  as  possible  was  the  remedy  which  the 
wisest  of  Americans  agreed  upon.  It  was  one  of  the  primary  purposes  of 
Monroe's  declaration  to  insist  upon  this  separation,  and  to  accomplish  it  he  drew 
the  line  at  the  water's  edge.  The  problem  of  national  protection  in  the  distant 
future  is  one  not  to  be  solved  by  the  first  impressions  of  the  casual  observer,  but 
only  by  profound  study  of  the  forces  which,  in  the  long  life  of  nations,  work 
out  results.  In  this  case  the  results  of  such  a  study  by  the  best  men  of  the 
formative  period  of  the  United  States  are  supported  by  the  instincts  of  the 
American  democracy  holding  steadily  in  one  direction  for  almost  a  century. 
The  problem  has  not  changed  essentially.  If  the  declaration  of  Monroe  was  right 
when  the  message  was  sent,  it  is  right  now.  South  America  is  no  more  distant 
today  than  it  was  then.  The  tremendous  armaments  and  international  jealousies 
of  Europe  afford  little  assurance  to  those  who  think  we  may  now  abandon  the 
separatist  policy  of  Washington.  That  South  American  States  have  become  too 
strong  for  colonization  or  occupation  is  cause  for  satisfaction.  That  Europe 
has  no  purpose  or  wish  to  colonize  American  territory  is  most  gratifying.  These 
facts  may  make  it  improbable  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  apply  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  in  the  southern  parts  of  South  America;  but  they  furnish  no  reason 
whatever  for  retracting  or  denying  or  abandoning  a  declaration  of  public  policy, 
just  and  reasonable  when  it  was  made,  and  which,  if  occasion  for  its  application 
shall  arise  in  the  future,  will  still  be  just  and  reasonable. 

A  false  conception  of  what  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is,  of  what  it  demands  and 
what  it  justifies,  of  its  scope  and  of  its  limits,  has  invaded  the  public  press  and 
affected  public  opinion  within  the  past  few  years.  Grandiose  schemes  of  national 
expansion  invoke  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Interested  motives  to  compel  Central 
or  South  American  countries  to  do  or  refrain  from  doing  something  by  which 
individual  Americans  may  profit  invoke  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Clamors  for 
national  glory  from  minds  too  shallow  to  grasp  at  the  same  time  a  sense  of 
national  duty  invoke  the  Monroe  Doctrine.    The  intolerance  which  demands  that 


42  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

control  over  the  conduct  and  the  opinions  of  other  peoples  which  is  the  essence 
of  tyranny  invoke  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Thoughtless  people  who  see  no 
difference  between  lawful  right  and  physical  power  assume  that  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  is  a  warrant  for  interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  all  weaker 
nations  in  the  New  World.  Against  this  supposititious  doctrine,  many  protests 
both  in  the  United  States  and  in  South  America  have  been  made,  and  justly  made. 
To  the  real  Monroe  Doctrine  these  protests  have  no  application 


XIV 

The  First  Hague  Peace  Conference,  1899:  American  Instructions 

and  Report 

Circular  Note  of  Count  Mouravieff,  Russian  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Pro- 
posing the  First  Peace  Conference. — St.  Petersburg,  August  12,  18^8. 

The  maintenance  of  general  peace  and  a  possible  reduction  of  the  excessive 
armaments  which  weigh  upon  all  nations  present  themselves,  in  the  existing  con- 
dition of  the  whole  world,  as  the  ideal  towards  which  the  endeavors  of  all 
Governments  should  be  directed. 

The  humanitarian  and  magnanimous  views  of  His  Majesty  the  Emperor,  my 
august  master,  are  in  perfect  accord  with  this  sentiment. 

In  the  conviction  that  this  lofty  aim  is  in  conformity  with  the  most  essential 
interests  and  the  legitimate  aspirations  of  all  Powers,  the  Imperial  Government 
believes  that  the  present  moment  would  be  very  favorable  for  seeking,  by  means 
of  international  discussion,  the  most  effective  means  of  ensuring  to  all  peoples 
the  benefits  of  a  real  and  lasting  peace,  and  above  all  of  limiting  the  progressive 
development  of  existing  armaments. 

In  the  course  of  the  last  twenty  years  the  longings  for  a  general  state  of 
peace  have  become  especially  pronounced  in  the  consciences  of  civilized  nations. 
The  preservation  of  peace  has  been  put  forward  as  the  object  of  international 
policy.  In  its  name  great  States  have  formed  powerful  alliances ;  and  for  the 
better  guaranty  of  peace  they  have  developed  their  military  forces  to  proportions 
hitherto  unknown  and  still  continue  to  increase  them  without  hesitating  at  any 
sacrifice. 

All  these  efforts  nevertheless  have  not  yet  led  to  the  beneficent  results  of  the 
desired  pacification. 

The  ever-increasing  financial  charges  strike  and  paralyze  public  prosperity  at 
its  source;  the  intellectual  and  physical  strength  of  the  nations,  their  labor  and 
capital,  are  for  the  most  part  diverted  from  their  natural  application  and  unpro- 
ductively  consumed ;  hundreds  of  millions  are  spent  in  acquiring  terrible  engines 
of  destruction,  which  though  to-day  regarded  as  the  last  word  of  science  are 
destined  to-morrow  to  lose  all  value  in  consequence  of  some  fresh  discovery  in 
the  same  field.  National  culture,  economic  progress,  and  the  production  of 
wealth  are  either  paralyzed  or  perverted  in  their  development. 

Moreover,  in  proportion  as  the  armaments  of  each  Power  increase,  so  do 
they  less  and  less  attain  the  object  aimed  at  by  the  Governments.  Economic 
crises,  due  in  great  part  to  the  system  of  amassing  armaments  to  the  point  of 
exhaustion,  and  the  continual  danger  which  lies  in  this  accumulation  of  war 
material,  are  transforming  the  armed  peace  of  our  days  into  a  crushing  burden 
which  the  peoples  have  more  and  more  difficulty  in  bearing.  It  appears  evident, 
then,  that  if  this  state  of  affairs  be  prolonged,  it  will  inevitably  lead  to  the  very 
cataclysm  which  it  is  desired  to  avert,  and  the  impending  horrors  of  which  are 
fearful  to  every  human  thought. 

43 


44  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

In  checking  these  increasing  armaments  and  in  seeking  the  means  of  averting 
the  calamities  which  threaten  the  entire  world  lies  the  supreme  duty  to-day 
resting  upon  all  States. 

Imbued  with  this  idea,  His  Majesty  has  been  pleased  to  command  me  to  pro- 
pose to  all  the  Governments  which  have  accredited  representatives  at  the  Imperial 
Court  the  holding  of  a  conference  to  consider  this  grave  problem. 

This  conference  would  be,  by  the  help  of  God,  a  happy  presage  for  the  cen- 
tury about  to  open.  It  would  converge  into  a  single  powerful  force  the  efforts 
of  all  the  States  which  sincerely  wish  the  great  conception  of  universal  peace  to 
triumph  over  the  elements  of  disturbance  and  discord.  It  would  at  the  same  time 
cement  their  agreement  by  a  solemn  avowal  of  the  principles  of  equity  and  law, 
upon  which  repose  the  security  of  States  and  the  welfare  of  peoples. 


INSTRUCTIONS    TO    THE   AMERICAN    DELEGATES    TO    THE    HAGUE 

CONFERENCE  OF  1899i 

Mr.  Hay  to  Hon.  Andrew  D.  White,  Hon.  Seth  Low,  Hon.  Stanford  Newel,  Capt 

Alfred  T.  Mahan,  U.  S.  N.,  Capt.  William  Crazier,  U.  S.  A.,  delegates  on 
the  part  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  April  i8,  i8pp. 

Gentlemen  :  You  have  been  appointed  by  the  President  to  constitute  a  com- 
mission to  represent  him  at  an  international  conference  called  by  His  Imperial 
Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Russia  to  meet  at  The  Hague,  at  a  time  to  be  indicated 
by  the  Government  of  the  Netherlands,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  most 
efficacious  means  of  assuring  to  all  peoples  the  "benefits  of  a  real  and  durable 
peace." 

Upon  your  arrival  at  The  Hague  you  will  effect  an  organization  of  your  com- 
mission, whose  records  will  be  kept  by  your  secretary,  Hon.  Frederick  W.  HoUs. 
All  reports  and  communications  will  be  made  through  this  Department,  accord- 
ing to  its  customary  forms,  for  preservation  in  the  archives. 

The  program  of  topics  suggested  by  the  Russian  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs for  discussion  at  the  Conference  in  his  circular  of  December  30,  1898,  is  as 
follows : 

1.  An  understanding  stipulating  the  non-augmentation,  for  a  term  to  be 
agreed  upon,  of  the  present  effective  armed  land  and  sea  forces,  as  well  as 
the  war  budgets  pertaining  to  them ;  preliminary  study  of  the  ways  in  which 


^Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1899,  p.  511. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  45 

even  a  reduction  of  the  aforesaid  effectives  and  budgets  could  be  realized  in 
the  future. 

2.  Interdiction  of  the  employment  in  armies  and  fleets  of  new  firearms 
of  every  description  and  of  new  explosives,  as  well  as  powder  more  powerful 
than  the  kinds  used. at  present,  both  for  guns  and  cannons. 

3.  Limitation  of  the  use  in  field  fighting  of  explosives  of  a  formidable 
power,  such  as  now  in  use,  and  prohibition  of  the  discharge  of  any  kind  of 
projectiles  or  explosives  from  balloons  or  by  similar  means. 

4.  Prohibition  of  the  use  in  naval  battles  of  submarine  or  diving  torpedo 
boats,  or  of  other  engines  of  destruction  of  the  same  nature;  agreement  not 
to  construct  in  the  future  war-ships  armed  with  rams. 

5.  Adaptation  to  naval  war  of  the  stipulation  of  the  Geneva  Convention 
of  1864,  on  the  base  of  the  additional  articles  of  1868. 

6.  Neutralization,  for  the  same  reason,  of  boats  or  launches  employed  in 
the  rescue  of  the  shipwrecked  during  or  after  naval  battles. 

7.  Revision  of  the  Declaration  concerning  the  laws  and  customs  of  war 
elaborated  in  1874  by  the  Conference  of  Brussels,  and  not  yet  ratified. 

8.  Acceptance,  in  principle,  of  the  use  of  good  offices,  mediation,  and 
voluntary  arbitration,  in  cases  where  they  are  available,  with  the  purpose  of 
preventing  armed  conflicts  between  nations;  understanding  in  relation  to 
their  mode  of  application  and  establishment  of  a  uniform  practice  in  employ- 
ing them. 

It  is  understood  that  all  questions  concerning  the  political  relations  of  States 
and  the  order  of  things  established  by  treaties,  as  in  general  all  the  questions  which 
shall  not  be  included  directly  in  the  program  adopted  by  the  cabinets,  should  be 
absolutely  excluded  from  the  deliberations  of  the  Conference. 

The  first  article,  relating  to  the  non-augmentation  and  future  reduction  of 
effective  land  and  sea  forces,  is,  at  present,  so  inapplicable  to  the  United  States 
that  it  is  deemed  advisable  for  the  delegates  to  leave  the  initiative  upon  this 
subject  to  the  representatives  of  those  Powers  to  which  it  may  properly  belong. 
In  comparison  with  the  effective  forces,  both  military  and  naval,  of  other  nations, 
those  of  the  United  States  are  at  present  so  far  below  the  normal  quota  that  the 
question  of  limitation  could  not  be  profitably  discussed. 

The  second,  third,  and  fourth  articles,  relating  to  the  non-employment  of 
firearms,  explosives,  and  other  destructive  agents,  the  restricted  use  of  existing 
instruments  of  destruction,  and  the  prohibition  of  certain  contrivances  employed 
in  naval  warfare,  seem  lacking  in  practicability,  and  the  discussion  of  these  propo- 
sitions would  probably  prove  provocative  of  divergence  rather  than  unanimity  of 
view.  It  is  doubtful  if  wars  are  to  be  diminished  by  rendering  them  less  de- 
structive, for  it  is  the  plain  lesson  of  history  that  the  periods  of  peace  have  been 
longer  protracted  as  the  cost  and  destructiveness  of  war  have  increased.  The 
expediency  of  restraining  the  inventive  genius  of  our  people  in  the  direction  of 
devising  means  of  defense  is  by  no  means  clear,  and  considering  the  temptations 
to  which  men  and  nations  may  be  exposed  in  a  time  of  conflict,  it  is  doubtful  if  an 


46  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

international  agreement  to  this  end  would  prove  effective.  The  dissent  of  a  single 
powerful  nation  might  render  it  altogether  nugatory.  The  delegates  are,  there- 
fore, enjoined  not  to  give  the  weight  of  their  influence  to  the  promotion  of 
projects  the  realization  of  which  is  so  uncertain. 

The  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  articles,  aiming  in  the  interest  of  humanity  to 
succor  those  who  by  the  chance  of  battle  have  been  rendered  helpless,  thus  losing 
the  character  of  effective  combatants,  or  to  alleviate  their  sufferings,  or  to  insure 
the  safety  of  those  whose  mission  is  purely  one  of  peace  and  beneficence,  may  well 
awake  the  cordial  interest  of  the  delegates,  and  any  practicable  propositions  based 
upon  them  should  receive  their  earnest  support. 

The  eighth  article,  which  proposes  the  wider  extension  of  good  offices,  media- 
tion and  arbitration,  seems  likely  to  open  the  most  fruitful  field  for  discussion  and 
future  action.  "The  prevention  of  armed  conflicts  by  pacific  means,"  to  use  the 
words  of  Count  Mouravieff's  circular  of  December  30,  is  a  purpose  well  worthy 
of  a  great  international  convention,  and  its  realization  in  an  age  of  general  en- 
lightenment should  not  be  impossible.  The  duty  of  sovereign  States  to  promote 
international  justice  by  all  wise  and  effective  means  is  only  secondary  to  the  fun- 
damental necessity  of  preserving  their  own  existence.  Next  in  importance  to 
their  independence  is  the  great  fact  of  their  interdependence.  Nothing  can  secure 
for  human  government  and  for  the  authority  of  law  which  it  represents  so  deep 
a  respect  and  so  firm  a  loyalty  as  the  spectacle  of  sovereign  and  independent 
States,  whose  duty  it  is  to  prescribe  the  rules  of  justice  and  impose  penalties  upon 
the  lawless,  bowing  with  reverence  before  the  august  supremacy  of  those  princi- 
ples of  right  which  give  to  law  its  eternal  foundation. 

The  proposed  conference  promises  to  offer  an  opportunity  thus  far  un- 
equaled  in  the  history  of  the  world  for  initiating  a  series  of  negotiations  that 
may  lead  to  important  practical  results.  The  long-continued  and  widespread 
interest  among  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  the  establishment  of  an  inter- 
national court,  as  evidenced  in  the  historical  resume  attached  to  these  instructions 
as  Annex  A,^  gives  assurance  that  the  proposal  of  a  definite  plan  of  procedure  by 
this  Government  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  end  would  express  the  desires  and 
aspirations  of  this  nation.  The  delegates  are,  therefore,  enjoined  to  propose,  at 
an  opportune  moment,  the  plan  for  an  international  tribunal,  hereunto  attached 
as  Annex  B,^  and  to  use  their  influence  in  the  conference  in  the  most  effective 
manner  possible  to  procure  the  adoption  of  its  substance  or  of  resolutions  directed 
to  the  same  purpose.  It  is  believed  that  the  disposition  and  aims  of  the  United 
States  in  relation  to  the  other  sovereign  Powers  could  not  be  expressed  more 
truly  or  opportunely  than  by  an  effort  of  the  delegates  of  this  Government  to 
concentrate  the  attention  of  the  world  upon  a  definite  plan  for  the  promotion  of 
international  justice. 


^Post,  p.  44. 
2  Post,  p.  48. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  47 

Since  the  Conference  has  its  chief  reason  of  existence  in  the  heavy  burdens 
and  cruel  waste  of  war,  which  nowhere  affect  innocent  private  persons  more 
severely  or  unjustly  than  in  the  damage  done  to  peaceable  trade  and  commerce, 
especially  at  sea,  the  question  of  exempting  private  property  from  destruction 
or  capture  on  the  high  seas  would  seem  to  be  a  timely  one  for  consideration. 

As  the  United  States  has  for  many  years  advocated  the  exemption  of  all 
private  property  not  contraband  of  war  from  hostile  treatment,  you  are  author- 
ized to  propose  to  the  Conference  the  principle  of  extending  to  strictly  private 
property  at  sea  the  immunity  from  destruction  or  capture  by  belligerent  Powers 
which  such  property  already  enjoys  on  land  as  worthy  of  being  incorporated  in 
the  permanent  law  of  civilized  nations. 

I  am,  etc., 

John  Hay. 

[Annex  A] 

HISTORICAL  RESUME 

From  time  to  time  in  the  history  of  the  United  States,  propositions  have  been 
made  for  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  peaceful  adjustment  of  differences 
arising  between  nations.  As  early  as  February,  1832,  the  Senate  of  Massachu- 
setts adopted,  by  a  vote  of  19  to  5,  a  resolution  expressing  the  opinion  that  "some 
mode  should  be  established  for  the  amicable  and  final  adjustment  of  all  interna- 
tional disputes  instead  of  resorting  to  war." 

A  similar  resolution  was  unanimously  passed  by  the  house  of  representatives 
of  the  same  State  in  1837,  and  by  the  senate  by  a  vote  of  35  to  5. 

A  little  prior  to  1840  there  was  much  popular  agitation  regarding  the  convo- 
cation of  a  congress  of  nations  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  international 
tribunal.  This  idea  was  commended  by  resolutions  adopted  by  the  legislature  of 
Massachusetts  in  1844  and  by  the  legislature  of  Vermont  in  1852. 

In  February,  1851,  Mr.  Foote,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
reported  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  resolution  that  ''in  the  judgment 
of  this  body  it  would  be  proper  and  desirable  for  the  Government  of  these  United 
States  whenever  practicable  to  secure  in  its  treaties  with  other  nations  a  provision 
for  referring  to  the  decision  of  umpires  all  future . misunderstandings  that  can 
not  be  satisfactorily  adjusted  by  amicable  negotiations  in  the  first  instance,  befon 
a  resort  to  hostilities  shall  be  had." 

Two  years  later  Senator  Underwood,  from  the  same  committee,  reported  a 
resolution  of  advice  to  the  President  suggesting  a  stipulation  in  all  treaties  here- 
after entered  into  with  other  nations  referring  the  adjustment  of  any  misunder- 
standing or  controversy  to  the  decision  of  disinterested  and  impartial  arbitrators 
to  be  mutually  chosen. 

May  31,  1872,  Mr.  Sumner  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  resolution  in  which, 


48  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

after  reviewing  the  historical  development  of  municipal  law  and  the  gradual 
suppression  of  private  war,  and  citing  the  progressive  action  of  the  Congress  of 
Paris  with  regard  to  neutrals,  he  proposed  the  establishment  of  a  tribunal  to  be 
clothed  with  such  authority  as  to  make  it  a  "complete  substitute  for  war,"  declar- 
ing a  refusal  to  abide  by  its  judgment  hostile  to  civilization,  to  the  end  that  ''war 
may  cease  to  be  regarded  as  a  proper  form  of  trial  between  nations/' 

In  1874  a  resolution  favoring  general  arbitration  was  passed  by  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

April  1,  1883,  a  confidential  inquity  was  addressed  to  Mr.  Frelinghuysen, 
Secretary  of  State,  by  Colonel  Frey,  then  Swiss  Minister  to  the  United  States, 
regarding  the  possibility  of  concluding  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration  between  the 
two  countries.  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  citing  the  general  policy  of  this  country  in 
past  years,  expressed  his  disposition  to  consider  the  proposition  with  favor.  Sep- 
tember 5,  1883,  Colonel  Frey  submitted  a  draft  of  a  treaty,  the  reception  of  which 
was  acknowledged  by  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  on  the  26th  of  the  same  month.  This 
draft,  adopted  by  the  Swiss  Federal  Council  July  24,  1883,  presented  a  short 
plan  of  arbitration.  These  negotiations  were  referred  to  in  the  President's  An- 
nual Message  for  1883,  but  were  not  concluded. 

In  1888,  a  communication  having  been  made  to  the  President  and  Congress 
of  the  United  States  by  two  hundred  and  thirty-five  members  of  the  British 
Parliament,  urging  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  of  arbitration  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  and  reenforced  by  petitions  and  memorials  from  multi- 
tudes of  individuals  and  associations  from  Maine  to  California,  great  enthusiasm 
was  exhibited  in  its  reception  by  eminent  citizens  of  New  York.  As  a  result  of 
this  movement,  on  June  13,  1888,  Mr.  Sherman,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  reported  to  the  Senate  a  joint  resolution  requesting  the  President  "to 
invite,  from  time  to  time,  as  fit  occasions  may  arise,  negotiations  with  any  Gov- 
ernment with  which  the  United  States  has  or  may  have  diplomatic  relations,  to 
the  end  that  the  differences  or  disputes  arising  between  the  two  Governments 
which  can  not  be  adjusted  by  diplomatic  agency  may  be  referred  to  arbitration, 
and  be  peaceably  adjusted  by  such  means." 

November  29,  1881,  Mr.  Blaine,  Secretary  of  State,  invited  -the  Governments 
of  the  American  nations  to  participate  in  a  Congress  to  be  held  in  the  city  of 
Washington,  November  24,  1882,  "for  the  purpose  of  considering  and  discussing 
the  methods  of  preventing  war  between  the  nations  of  America."  For  special 
reasons  the  enterprise  was  temporarily  abandoned,  but  was  afterwards  revived 
and  enlarged  in  Congress,  and  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  calling  of  the 
International  American  Conference,  which  assembled  in  Washington  in  the 
autumn  of  1889.  On  April  18,  1890,  referring  to  this  plan  of  arbitration,  Mr. 
Blaine  said: 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  49 

If,  in  this  closing  hour,  the  Conference  had  but  one  deed  to  celebrate, 
we  should  dare  call  the  world's  attention  to  the  deliberate,  confident,  solemn 
dedication  of  two  great  continents  to  peace,  and  to  the  prosperity  which  has 
peace  for  its  foundation.  We  hold  up  this  new  Magna  Charta,  which  abol- 
ishes war  and  substitutes  arbitration  between  the  American  republics,  as  the 
first  and  great  fruit  of  the  "International  American  Conference." 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  February  14,  1890,  and  the  House  of 
Representatives  on  April  3,  1890,  adopted  a  concufrent  resolution  in  the  language 
reported  by  Mr.  Sherman  to  the  Senate  in  June,  1888. 

July  8,  1895,  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies  unanimously  resolved: 

The  Chamber  invites  the  Government  to  negotiate  as  soon  as  possible  a 
permanent  treaty  of  arbitration  between  the  French  Republic  and  the 
Republic  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

July  16,  1893,  the  British  House  of  Commons  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resolved,  That  this  House  has  learnt  with  satisfaction  that  both  Houses 
of  the  United  States  Congress  have,  by  resolution,  requested  the  President 
to  invite,  from  time  to  time,  as  fit  occasions  may  arise,  negotiations  with  any 
Government  with  which  the  United  States  have  or  may  have  diplomatic 
relations,  to  the  end  that  any  differences  or  disputes  arising  between  the  two 
Governments  which  can  not  be  adjusted  by  diplomatic  agency  may  be  re- 
ferred to  arbitration  and  peaceably  adjusted  by  such  means;  and  that  this 
House,  cordially  sympathizing  with  the  purpose  in  view,  expresses  the  hope 
that  Her  Majesty's  Government  will  lend  their  ready  cooperation  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  upon  the  basis  of  the  foregoing  resolution. 

December  4,  1893,  President  Cleveland  referred  to  the  foregoing  resolution 
of  the  British  House  of  Commons  as  follows: 

It  affords  me  signal  pleasure  to  lay  this  parliamentary  resolution  before 
the  Congress  and  to  express  my  sincere  gratification  that  the  sentiment  of 
two  great  and  kindred  nations  is  thus  authoritatively  manifested  in  favor  of 
the  rational  and  peaceable  settlement  of  international  quarrels  by  honorable 
resort  to  arbitration. 

These  resolutions  led  to  the  exchange  of  communications  regarding  the  con- 
clusion of  a  permanent  treaty  of  arbitration,  suspended  from  the  spring  of  1895 
to  March  5,  1898,  when  negotiations  were  resumed  which  resulted  in  the  signature 
of  a  treaty  January  11,  1897,  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

In  his  inaugural  address,  March  4,  1897,  President  McKinley  said: 

Arbitration  is  the  true  method  of  settlement  of  international  as  well  as 
local  or  individual  differences.     It  was  recognized  as  the  best  means  of 


so  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

adjustment  of  differences  between  employers  and  employees  by  the  Forty- 
ninth  Congress  in  1886,  and  its  application  was  extended  to  our  diplomatic 
relations  by  the  unanimous  concurrence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  the  Fifty- 
first  Congress  in  1890.  The  latter  resolution  was  accepted  as  the  basis  of 
negotiations  with  us  by  the  British  House  of  Commons  in  1893,  and  upon 
our  invitation  a  treaty  of  arbitration  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  was  signed  at  Washington  and  transmitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratifica- 
tion in  January  last. 

Since  this  treaty  is  clearly  the  result  of  our  own  initiative,  since  it  has 
been  recognized  as  the  leading  feature  of  our  foreign  policy  throughout  our 
entire  national  history — the  adjustment  of  difficulties  by  judicial  methods 
rather  than  force  of  arms — and  since  it  presents  to  the  world  the  glorious 
example  of  reason  and  peace,  not  passion  and  war,  controlling  the  relations 
between  two  of  the  greatest  nations  of  the  world,  an  example  certain  to  be 
followed  by  others,  I  respectfully  urge  the  early  action  of  the  Senate  thereon, 
not  merely  as  a  matter  of  policy,  but  as  a  duty  to  mankind.  The  importance 
and  moral  influence  of  the  ratification  of  such  a  treaty  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated in  the  cause  of  advancing  civilization.  It  may  well  engage  the  best 
thought  of  the  statesmen  and  people  of  e\ery  country,  and  I  can  not  but 
consider  it  fortunate  that  it  was  reserved  to  the  United  States  to  have  the 
leadership  in  so  grand  a  work. 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  declined  to  concur  in  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  of  arbitration  with  Great  Britain,  but  for  reasons  which  might  not  affect 
a  o^eneral  treaty  directed  toward  a  similar  end. 

The  publication  by  this  Government  of  the  exhaustive  History  and  Digest  of 
the  International  Arbitrations  to  which  the  United  States  has  been  a  Party,  by 
the  Hon.  John  Bassett  Moore,  late  Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  a  work  extending 
through  six  volumes,  marks  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  arbitration.  It  places 
beyond  controversy  the  applicability  of  judicial  methods  to  a  large  variety  of 
international  disagreements  which  have  been  successfully  adjudicated  by  indi- 
vidual arbitrators  or  temporary  boards  of  arbitration  chosen  by  the  litigants  for 
each  case.  It  also  furnishes  an  exceedingly  valuable  body  of  rules  of  organiza- 
tion and  procedure  for  the  guidance  of  future  tribunals  of  a  similar  nature.  But, 
perhaps,  its  highest  significance  is  the  demonstration  of  the  superiority  of  a  per- 
manent tribunal  over  merely  special  and  temporary  boards  of  arbitration,  with 
respect  to  economy  of  time  and  money  as  well  as  uniformity  of  method  and 
procedure. 

A  history  of  the  various  plans  for  the  realization  of  international  justice 
shows  the  gradual  evolution  of  clearer  and  less  objectionable  conceptions  upon 
this  subject.  Those  of  Bluntschli,  Lorimer,  David  Dudley  Field,  and  Leone 
Levi  have  been  long  before  the  public,  each  containing  useful  suggestions,  but 
impracticable  as  a  whole.  Certain  rules  for  the  regulation  of  the  procedure  of 
international  tribunals  of  arbitration  were  discussed  by  the  Institute  of  Inter- 
national Law  at  its  sessions  at  Geneva  in  1874,  and  at  The  Hague  in  1875,  and 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  51 

provisional  rules  were  finally  approved.  Another  set  of  rules  was  proposed  by 
a  select  committee  of  lawyers  at  the  Universal  Peace  Congress,  held  in  Chicago 
in  1893.  Resolutions  of  a  somewhat  elaborate  nature  were  adopted  by  the  Inter- 
parliamentary Conference,  composed  of  British  and  French  members  of  Parlia- 
ment, at  Brussels  in  1895.  In  April,  1896,  the  Bar  Association  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  at  a  special  meeting  held  at  Albany,  adopted  a  plan  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  permanent  international  tribunal.  The  almost  continuous  movement 
of  thought  in  this  direction  since  1832  has  been  interrupted  only  by  the  late 
Spanish-American  war. 

A  careful  review  of  all  the  plans  for  an  international  tribunal  that  have  thus 
far  been  proposed  makes  it  evident  that  they  have  failed  from  two  causes:  (1) 
Too  great  elaboration  and  complication,  involving  too  many  debatable  questions ; 
and  (2)  the  absence  of  an  opportune  occasion  for  proposing  them  to  an  authori- 
tative international  body. 

The  plan  that  is  to  prove  successful,  if  a  sufficient  number  of  sovereign 
States  be  disposed  to  adopt  any  plan  whatsoever  for  an  international  tribunal, 
must  combine  an  adequate  grasp  of  the  conditions  with  an  extreme  simplicity, 
leaving  much  to  the  cooperation  of  others  and  the  development  of  the  future. 

The  introduction  of  a  brief  resolution  at  an  opportune  moment  in  the  pro- 
posed Peace  Conference  would  at  least  place  the  United  States  on  record  as  the 
friend  and  promoter  of  peace.  The  resolution  hereto  appended  ^  is  intended  to 
embody  in  the  briefest  and  simplest  manner  the  most  useful  suggestions  of  all  the 
plans  proposed. 

[Annex  B] 

PI.AN   FOR  AN    INTERNATlONAIy  TRIBUNAI, 

Resolved,  That  in  order  to  aid  in  the  prevention  of  armed  conflicts  by  pacific 
means,  the  representatives  of  the  sovereign  Powers  assembled  together  in  this 
Conference  be,  and  hereby  are,  requested  to  propose  to  their  respective  Govern- 
ments a  series  of  negotiations  for  the  adoption  of  a  general  treaty  having  for  its 
object  the  following  plan,  with  such  modifications  as  may  be  essential  to  secure 
the  adhesion  of  at  least  nine  sovereign  Powers : 

1.  The  tribunal  shall  be  composed  of  judges  chosen  on  account  of  their  per- 
sonal integrity  and  learning  in  international  law  by  a  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  highest  court  now  existing  in  each  of  the  adhering  States,  one  from  each 
sovereign  State  participating  in  the  treaty,  and  shall  hold  office  until  their  suc- 
cessors are  appointed  by  the  same  body. 

2.  The  tribunal  shall  meet  for  organization  at  a  time  and  place  to  be  agreed 
upon  by  the  several  Governments,  but  not  later  than  six  months  after  the  general 


^  Annex  B,  infra. 


52  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

treaty  shall  be  ratified  by  nine  Powers,  and  shall  organize  itself  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  permanent  clerk  and  such  other  officers  as  may  be  found  necessary,  but 
without  conferring  any  distinction  upon  its  own  members.  The  tribunal  shall  be 
empowered  to  fix  its  place  of  sessions  and  to  change  the  same  from  time  to  time 
as  the  interests  of  justice  or  the  convenience  of  the  litigants  may  seem  to  require, 
and  fix  its  own  rules  of  procedure. 

3.  The  contracting  nations  will  mutually  agree  to  submit  to  the  international 
tribunal  all  questions  of  disagreement  between  them,  excepting  such  as  may  relate 
to  or  involve  their  political  independence  or  territorial  integrity.  Questions  of 
disagreement,  with  the  aforesaid  exceptions,  arising  between  an  adherent  State 
and  a  non-adhering  State,  or  between  two  sovereign  States  not  adherent  to  the 
treaty,  may,  with  the  consent  of  both  parties  in  dispute,  be  submitted  to  the  inter- 
national tribunal  for  adjudication,  upon  the  condition  expressed  in  Article  6. 

4.  The  tribunal  shall  be  of  a  permanent  character  and  shall  be  always  open 
for  the  filing  of  cases  and  counter-cases,  either  by  the  contracting  nations  or  by 
others  that  may  choose  to  submit  them,  and  all  cases  and  counter-cases,  with  the 
testimony  and  arguments  by  which  they  are  to  be  supported  or  answered,  are  to 
be  in  writing.  All  cases,  counter-cases,  evidence,  arguments,  and  opinions  ex- 
pressing judgment  are  to  be  accessible,  after  a  decision  is  rendered,  to  all  who 
desire  to  pay  the  necessary  charges  for  transcription. 

5.  A  bench  of  judges  for  each  particular  case  shall  consist  of  not  less  than 
three  nor  more  than  seven,  as  may  be  deemed  expedient,  appointed  by  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  tribunal,  and  not  to  include  a  member  who  is  either  a  native, 
subject,  or  citizen  of  the  State  whose  interests  are  in  litigation  in  that  case. 

6.  The  general  expenses  of  the  tribunal  are  to  be  divided  equally  between 
the  adherent  Powers,  but  those  arising  from  each  particular  case  shall  be  provided 
for  as  may  be  directed  by  the  tribunal.  The  presentation  of  a  case  wherein  one 
or  both  of  the  parties  may  be  a  non-adherent  State  shall  be  admitted  only  upon 
condition  of  a  mutual  agreement  that  the  State  against  which  judgment  may  be 
found  shall  pay,  in  addition  to  the  judgment,  a  sum  to  be  fixed  by  the  tribunal  for 
the  expenses  of  the  adjudication. 

7.  Every  litigant  before  the  international  tribunal  shall  have  the  right  to  make 
an  appeal  for  reexamination  of  a  case  within  three  months  after  notification  of 
the  decision,  upon  presentation  of  evidence  that  the  judgment  contains  a  sub- 
stantial error  of  fact  or  law. 

8.  This  treaty  shall  become  operative  when  nine  sovereign  States,  whereof 
at  least  six  shall  have  taken  part  in  the  Conference  of  The  Hague,  shall  have 
ratified  its  provisions. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  53 

REPORT   TO    THE   SECRETARY   OF   STATE   OF   THE   DELEGATES    TO    THE 

FIRST  HAGUE  CONFERENCEi 

The:  Hague,  July  31,  i8pp. 
The  Honorabi^k  John  Hay, 

Secretary  oe  Stater. 

Sir:  On  May  17,  1899,  the  American  Commission  to  the  Peace  Conference 
of  The  Hague  met  for  the  first  time  at  the  house  of  the  American  Minister,  the 
Honorable  Stanford  Newel,  the  members,  in  the  order  named  in  the  instructions 
from  the  State  Department  being  Andrew  D.  White,  Seth  Low,  Stanford  Newel, 
Captain  Alfred  T.  Mahan  of  the  United  States  Navy,  Captain  William  Crozier 
of  the  United  States  Army,  and  Frederick  W.  Holls,  secretary.  Mr.  White  was 
elected  president,  and  the  instructions  from  the  Department  of  State  were  read. 

On  the  following  day  the  Conference  was  opened  at  the  palace  known  as 
"The  House  in  the  Wood,"  and  delegates  from  the  following  countries,  twenty- 
six  in  number,  were  found  to  be  present:  Germany,  the  United  States  of 
America,  Austria-Hungary,  Belgium,  China,  Denmark,  Spain,  France,  Great 
Britian  and  Ireland,  Greece,  Italy,  Japan,  Luxemburg,  Mexico,  Montenegro,  the 
Netherlands,  Persia,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Russia,  Servia,  Siam,  Sweden  and 
Norway,  Switzerland,  Turkey,  and  Bulgaria. 

The  opening  meeting  was  occupied  mainly  by  proceedings  of  a  ceremonial 
nature,  including  a  telegram  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  and  a  message  of  thanks 
to  the  Queen  of  the  Netherlands,  with  speeches  by  Mr.  de  Beaufort,  the  Nether- 
lands Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Mr.  de  Staal,  representing  Russia. 

At  the  second  meeting  a  permanent  organization  of  the  Conference  was 
effected.  Mr.  de  Staal  being  chosen  president,  Mr.  de  Beaufort  honorary  presi- 
dent, and  Mr.  van  Karnebeek,  a  former  Netherlands  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
vice-president.     A  sufficient  number  of  secretaries  was  also  named. 

The  work  of  the  Conference  was  next  laid  out  with  reference  to  the  points 
stated  in  the  Mouravieff  circular  of  December  30,  1898,  and  divided  between 
three  great  committees  as  follows : 

The  first  of  these  committees  was  upon  the  limitation  of  armaments  and  war 
budgets,  the  interdiction  or  discouragement  of  sundry  arms  and  explosives  which 
had  been  or  might  be  hereafter  invented,  and  the  limitation  of  the  use  of  sundry 
explosives,  projectiles,  and  methods  of  destruction,  both  on  land  and  sea,  as  con- 
tained in  Articles  1  to  4  of  the  Mouravieff  circular. 

The  second  great  committee  had  reference  to  the  extension  of  the  Geneva 
Red  Cross  rules  of  1864  and  1868  to  maritime  warfare,  and  the  revision  of  the 
Brussels  Declaration  of  1874  concerning  the  laws  and  customs  of  war,  as  con- 
tained in  Articles  5  to  7  of  the  same  circular. 


^Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1899,  p.  513. 


54  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

The  third  committee  had  as  its  subjects,  mediation,  arbitration,  and  other 
methods  of  preventing  armed  conflicts  between  nations,  as  referred  to  in  Article  8 
of  the  Mouravieff  circular. 

The  American  members  of  these  three  committees  were  as  follows :  of  the 
first  cornmittee,  Messrs.  White,  Mahan,  Crozier ;  of  the  second  committee,  Messrs. 
White,  Newel,  Mahan,  Crozier;  of  the  third  committee,  Messrs.  White,  Low 
and  Holls. 

In  aid  of  these  three  main  committees  subcommittees  were  appointed  as 
follows : 

The  first  committee  referred  questions  of  a  military  nature  to  the  first  sub- 
committee, of  which  Captain  Crozier  was  a  member,  and  questions  of  a  naval 
nature  to  the  second  subcommittee,  of  which  Captain  Mahan  was  a  member. 

The  second  committee  referred  Articles  5  and  6,  having  reference  to  the 
extension  of  the  Geneva  rules  to  maritime  warfare,  to  a  subcommittee  of  which 
Captain  Mahan  was  a  member,  and  Article  7,  concerning  the  revision  of  the  laws 
and  customs  of  war,  to  a  subcommittee  of  which  Captain  Crozier  was  a  member. 

The  third  committee  appointed  a  single  subcommittee  of  "examination," 
whose  purpose  was  to  scrutinize  plans,  projects,  and  suggestions  of  arbitration, 
and  of  this  committee  Mr.  Holls  was  a  member. 

The  main  steps  in  the  progress  of  the  work  wrought  by  these  agencies,  and 
the  part  taken  in  it  by  our  commission  are  detailed  in  the  accompanying  reports,^ 
made  to  the  American  commission  by  the  American  members  of  the  three  com- 
mittees of  the  Conference.  It  will  be  seen  from  these  that  some  of  the  most 
important  features  finally  adopted  were  the  result  of  American  proposals  and 
suggestions. 

As  to  that  portion  of  the  work  of  the  first  committee  of  the  Conference 
which  concerned  the  non-augmentation  of  armies,  navies,  and  war  budgets  for  a 
fixed  term,  and  the  study  of  the  means  for  eventually  diminishing  armies  and 
war  budgets,  namely.  Article  1,  the  circumstances  of  the  United  States  being  so 
different  from  those  which  obtain  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  and  especially  in 
Europe,  we  thought  it  best,  under  our  instructions,  to  abstain  from  taking  any 
active  part.     In  this  connection  the  following  declaration  was  made : 

The  delegation  of  the  United  States  of  America  has  concurred  in  the 
conclusions  upon  the  first  clause  of  the  Russian  letter  of  December  30,  1898, 
presented  to  the  Conference  by  the  first  commission,  namely,  that  the  pro- 
posals of  the  Russian  representatives  for  fixing  the  amounts  of  effective 
forces  and  of  budgets,  military  and  naval,  for  periods  of  five  and  three  years, 
can  not  now  be  accepted,  and  that  a  more  profound  study  upon  the  part  of 
each  State  concerned  is  to  be  desired.  But,  while  thus  supporting  what 
seemed  to  be  the  only  practicable  solution  of  a  question  submitted  to  the 


1  Only  the  report  of  the  American  Commission  is  printed.     The  reports  made  by  the 
members  are  omitted. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  55 

Conference  by  the  Russian  letter,  the  delegation  wishes  to  place  upon  the 
record  that  the  United  States,  in  so  doing,  does  not  express  any  opinion  as 
to  the  course  to  be  taken  by  the  States  of  Europe. 

This  declaration  is  not  meant  to  indicate  mere  indifference  to  a  difficult 
problem,  because  it  does  not  affect  the  United  States  immediately,  but  ex- 
presses a  determination  to  refrain  from  enunciating  opinions  upon  matters 
into  which,  as  concerning  Europe  alone,  the  United  States  has  no  claim  to 
enter.  The  words  drawn  up  by  M.  Bourgeois,  and  adopted  by  the  first  com- 
mission, received  also  the  hearty  concurrence  of  this  delegation,  because  in 
so  doing  it  expresses  the  cordial  interest  and  sympathy  with  which  the  United 
States,  while  carefully  abstaining  from  anything  that  might  resemble  inter- 
ference, regards  all  movements  that  are  thought  to  tend  to  the  welfare  of 
Europe.  The  military  and  naval  armaments  of  the  United  States  are  at 
present  so  small,  relatively  to  the  extent  of  territory  and  to  the  number  of  the 
population,  as  well  as  in  comparison  with  those  of  other  nations,  that  their 
size  can  entail  no  additional  burden  of  expense  upon  the  latter,  nor  can  even 
form  a  subject  for  profitable  mutual  discussion. 

•  As  to  that  portion  of  the  work  of  the  first  committee  which  concerned  the 
limitations  of  invention  and  the  interdiction  of  sundry  arms,  explosives,  me- 
chanical agencies,  and  methods  heretofore  in  use  or  which  might  possibly  be 
hereafter  adopted,  as  regards  warfare  by  land  and  sea,  namely.  Articles  2,  3,  and 
4,  the  whole  matter  having  been  divided  between  Captains  Mahan  and  Crozier  so 
far  as  technical  discussion  was  concerned,  the  reports  made  by  them  from  time  to 
time  to  the  American  commission  formed  the  basis  of  its  final  action  on  these 
subjects  in  the  first  committee  and  in  the  Conference  at  large. 

The  American  commission  approached  the  subject  of  the  limitation  of  inven- 
tion with  much  doubt.  They  had  been  justly  reminded  in  their  instructions  of 
the  fact  that  by  the  progress  of  invention,  as  applied  to  the  agencies  of  war,  the 
frequency,  and,  indeed,  the  exhausting  character  of  war  had  been,  as  a  rule, 
diminished  rather  than  increased.  As  to  details  regarding  missiles  and  methods, 
technical  and  other  difficulties  arose  which  obliged  us  eventually,  as  will  be  seen, 
to  put  ourselves  on  record  in  opposition  to  the  large  majority  of  our  colleagues 
from  other  nations  on  sundry  points.  While  agreeing  with  them  most  earnestly 
as  to  the  end  to  be  attained,  the  difference  in  regard  to  some  details  was  irrec- 
oncilable. We  feared  falling  into  evils  worse  than  those  from  which  we  sought 
to  escape.  The  annexed  reports  of  Captains  Mahan  and  Crozier  will  exhibit 
very  fully  these  difficulties  and  the  decisions  thence  arising. 

As  to  the  work  of  the  second  great  committee  of  the  Conference,  the  matters 
concerned  in  Articles  5  and  6,  which  related  to  the  extension  to  maritime  warfare 
of  the  Red  Cross  rules  regarding  care  for  the  wounded,  adopted  in  the  Geneva 
Convention  of  1864  and  1868,  were,  as  already  stated,  referred,  as  regards  the 
discussion  of  technical  questions  in  the  committee  and  subcommittee,  to  Captain 
Mahan,  and  the  matters  concerned  in  Article  7,  on  the  revision  of  the  laws  and 


56  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

customs  of  war,  were  referred  to  Captain  Crozier.  On  these  technical  questions 
Captains  Mahan  and  Crozier  reported  from  time  to  time  to  the  American  com- 
mission, and  these  reports,  having  been  discussed  both  in  regard  to  their  general 
and  special  bearings,  became  the  basis  of  the  final  action  of  the  entire  American 
commission,  both  in  the  second  committee  and  in  the  Conference  at  large. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  subjects,  the  extension  of  the  Geneva  Red  Cross  rules 
to  maritime  warfare,  while  the  general  purpose  of  the  articles  adopted  elicited  the 
especial  sympathy  of  the  American  commission,  a  neglect  of  what  seemed  to  us  a 
question  of  almost  vital  importance,  namely,  the  determination  of  the  status  of 
men  picked  up  by  the  hospital  ships  of  neutral  States  or  by  other  neutral  vessels, 
has  led  us  to  refrain  from  signing  the  convention  prepared  by  the  Conference 
touching  this  subject,  and  to  submit  the  matter  with  full  explanations  to  the 
Department  of  State  for  decision. 

As  to  the  second  of  these  subjects,  the  revision  of  the  laws  and  customs  of 
war,  though  the  code  adopted  and  embodied  in  the  third  convention  commends 
our  approval,  it  is  of  such  extent  and  importance  as  to  appear  to  need  detailed 
consideration  in  connection  with  similar  laws  and  customs  already  in  force  in  the 
Army  of  the  United  States,  and  it  was  thought  best  therefore  to  withhold  our 
signature  from  this  convention  also  and  to  refer  it  to  the  State  Department  with 
a  recommendation  that  it  be  there  submitted  to  the  proper  authorities  for  special 
examination  and  signed,  unless  such  examination  shall  disclose  imperfections  not 
apparent  to  the  commission. 

As  to  the  third  great  committee  of  the  Conference,  that  which  had  in  charge 
the  matters  concerned  in  Article  8  of  the  Russian  circular  with  reference  to  good 
ofiices,  mediation,  and  arbitration,  the  proceedings  of  the  subcommittee  above 
referred  to  became  especially  important. 

While  much  interest  was  shown  in  the  discussions  of  the  first  of  the  great 
committees  of  the  Conference,  and  still  more  in  those  of  the  second,  the  main 
interest  of  the  whole  body  centered  more  and  more  in  the  third.  It  was  felt  that 
a  thorough  provision  for  arbitration  and  its  cognate  subjects  is  the  logical  pre- 
cursor of  the  limitation  of  standing  armies  and  budgets,  and  that  the  true  logical 
order  is  first  arbitration  and  then  disarmament. 

As  to  subsidiary  agencies,  while  our  commission  contributed  much  to  the 
general  work  regarding  good  offices  and  mediation  it  contributed  entirely,  through 
Mr.  Holls,  the  plan  for  "special  mediation"  which  was  adopted  unanimously, 
first  by  the  committee  and  finally  by  the  Conference. 

As  to  the  plan  for  "international  commissions  of  inquiry,"  which  emanated 
from  the  Russian  delegation,  our  commission  acknowledged  its  probable  value  and 
aided  in  elaborating  it,  but  added  to  the  safeguards  against  any  possible  abuse  of 
it,  as  concerns  the  United  States,  by  our  declaration  of  July  25,  to  be  mentioned 
hereafter. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  57 

The  functions  of  such  commission  are  strictly  limited  to  the  ascertainment 
of  facts,  and  it  is  hoped  that  both  by  giving  time  for  passions  to  subside  and  by 
substituting  truth  for  rumor  they  may  prove  useful  at  times  in  settling  inter- 
national disputes.  The  commissions  of  inquiry  may  also  form  a  useful  auxiliary 
both  in  the  exercise  of  good  offices  and  arbitration. 

As  to  the  next  main  subject,  the  most  important  of  all  under  consideration 
by  the  third  committee — ^the  plan  of  a  permanent  court  or  tribunal — we  were  also 
able,  in  accordance  with  our  instructions,  to  make  contributions  which  we  believe 
will  aid  in  giving  such  a  court  dignity  and  efficiency. 

On  the  assembling  of  the  Conference  the  feeling  regarding  the  establishment 
of  an  actual  permanent  tribunal  was  evidently  chaotic,  with  little  or  no  apparent 
tendency  to  crystallize  into  any  satisfactory  institution.  The  very  elaborate  and 
in  the  main  excellent  proposals  relating  to  procedure  before  special  and  temporary 
tribunals,  which  were  presented  by  the  Russian  delegation,  did  not  at  first  con- 
template the  establishrnent  of  any  such  permanent  institution.  The  American 
plan  contained  a  carefully  devised  project  for  such  a  tribunal,  which  differed  from 
that  adopted  mainly  in  contemplating  a  tribunal  capable  of  meeting  in  full  bench 
and  permanent  in  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  like  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  instead  of  a  court  like  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  which  never  sits  as  a  whole,  but  whose  members  sit  from  time  to  time  singly 
or  in  groups,  as  occasion  may  demand.  The  Court  of  Arbitration  provided  for 
resembles  in  many  features  the  supreme  court  of  the  State  of  New  York  and 
courts  of  unlimited  original  jurisdiction  in  various  other  States. 

In  order  to  make  this  system  effective  a  Council  was  established,  composed 
of  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  the  various  Powers  at  The  Hague,  and  pre- 
sided over  by  the  Netherlands  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  which  should  have 
charge  of  the  central  office  of  the  proposed  Court,  of  all  administrative  details, 
and  of  the  means  and  machinery  for  speedily  calling  a  proper  bench  of  judges 
together  and  for  setting  the  Court  in  action.  The  reasons  for  our  cooperation 
in  making  this  plan  will  be  found  in  the  accompanying  report.  This  compromise, 
involving  the  creation  of  a  council  and  the  selection  of  judges  not  to  be  in  session 
save  when  actually  required  for  international  litigation,  was  proposed  by  Great 
Britain,  and  the  feature  of  it  which  provided  for  the  admission  of  the  Nether- 
lands, with  its  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  as  President  of  the  Council,  was  pro- 
posed by  the  American  commission.  The  nations  generally  joined  in  perfecting 
other  details.     It  may  truthfully  be  called,  therefore,  the  plan  of  the  Conference. 

As  to  the  revision  of  the  decisions  by  the  tribunal  in  case  of  the  discovery  of 
new  facts,  a  subject  on  which  our  instructions  were  explicit,  we  were  able,  in 
the  face  of  determined  and  prolonged  opposition,  to  secure  recognition  in  the  code 
of  procedure  for  the  American  view. 

As  regards  the  procedure  to  be  adopted  in  the  International  Court  thus  pro- 


58  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

vided,  the  main  features  having  been  proposed  by  the  Russian  delegation,  various 
modifications  were  made  by  other  delegations,  including  our  own.  Our  commis- 
sion was  careful  to  see  that  in  this  code  there  should  be  nothing  which  could  put 
those  conversant  more  especially  with  British  and  American  common  law  and 
equity  at  a  disadvantage.  To  sundry  important  features  proposed  by  other 
Powers  our  own  commission  gave  hearty  support.  This  was  the  case  especially 
with  Article  27  proposed  by  France.  It  provides  a  means,  through  the  agency 
of  the  Powers  generally,  for  calling  the  attention  of  any  nations  apparently  drift- 
ing into  war  to  the  fact  that  the  tribunal  is  ready  to  hear  their  contention.  In 
this  provision,  broadly  interpreted,  we  acquiesced,  but  endeavored  to  secure  a 
clause  limiting  to  suitable  circumstances  the  "duty"  imposed  by  the  article.  Great 
opposition  being  shown  to  such  an  amendment  as  unduly  weakening  the  article, 
we  decided  to  present  a  declaration  that  nothing  contained  in  the  convention 
should  make  it  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  intrude  in  or  become  entangled 
with  European  political  questions  or  matters  of  internal  administration  or  to  re- 
linquish the  traditional  attitude  of  our  nation  toward  purely  American  questions. 
This  declaration  was  received  without  objection  by  the  Conference  in  full  and 
open  session.^ 

As  to  the  results  thus  obtained  as  a  whole  regarding  arbitration,  in  view  of 
all  the  circumstances  and  considerations  revealed  during  the  sessions  of  the  Con- 
ference, it  is  our  opinion  that  the  "Plan  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  international 
disputes,'*  which  was  adopted  by  the  Conference,  is  better  than  that  presented 
by  any  one  nation.  We  believe  that,  though  it  will  doubtless  be  found  imperfect 
and  will  require  modification  as  times  goes  on,  it  will  form  a  thoroughly  practical 
beginning,  it  will  produce  valuable  results  from  the  outset,  and  it  will  be  the 
germ  out  of  which  a  better  and  better  system  will  be  gradually  evolved. 

As  to  the  question  between  compulsory  and  voluntary  arbitration  it  was 
clearly  seen  before  we  had  been  long  in  session  that  general  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion of  questions  really  likely  to  produce  war  could  not  be  obtained;  in  fact  that 
not  one  of  the  nations  represented  at  the  Conference  was  willing  to  embark  in  it, 
so  far  as  the  more  serious  questions  were  concerned.  Even  as  to  the  questions 
of  less  moment,  it  was  found  to  be  impossible  to  secure  agreement,  except  upon  a 
voluntary  basis.  We  ourselves  felt  obliged  to  insist  upon  the  omission  from  the 
Russian  list  of  proposed  subjects  for  compulsory  arbitration  international  con- 
ventions relating  to  rivers,  to  interoceanic  canals,  and  to  monetary  matters.  Even 
as  so  amended,  the  plan  was  not  acceptable  to  all.  As  a  consequence,  the  conven- 
tion prepared  by  the  Conference  provides  for  voluntary  arbitration  only.  It 
remains  for  public  opinion  to  make  this  system  effective.  As  questions  arise 
threatening  resort  to  arms  it  may  well  be  hoped  that  public  opinion  in  the  nations 
concerned,  seeing  in  this  great  international  court  a  means  of  escape  from  the 


ipor  the  text  of  this  declaration  see  post,  p.  60. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  59 

increasing  horrors  of  war,  will  insist  more  and  more  that  the  questions  at  issue 
be  referred  to  it.  As  time  goes  on  such  reference  will  probably  more  and  more 
seem  to  the  world  at  large  natural  and  normal,  and  we  may  hope  that  recourse 
to  the  tribunal  will  finally,  in  the  great  majority  of  serious  differences  between 
nations,  become  a  regular  means  of  avoiding  the  resort  to  arms.  There  will  also 
be  another  effect  worthy  of  consideration.  This  is  the  building  up  of  a  body  of 
international  law  growing  out  of  the  decisions  handed  down  by  the  judges.  The 
procedure  of  the  tribunal  requires  that  reasons  for  such  decisions  shall  be  given, 
and  these  decisions  and  reasons  can  hardly  fail  to  form  additions  of  especial  value 
to  international  jurisprudence. 

It  now  remains  to  report  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference,  as  well  as  our 
ovm  action,  regarding  the  question  of  the  immunity  of  private  property  not  con- 
traband from  seizure  on  the  seas  in  time  of  war.  From  the  very  beginning  of  our 
sessions  it  was  constantly  insisted  by  leading  representatives  from  nearly  all  the 
great  Powers  that  the  action  of  the  Conference  should  be  strictly  limited  to  the 
matters  specified  in  the  Russian  circular  of  December  30,  1898,  and  referred  to  in 
the  invitation  emanating  from  the  Netherlands  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Many  reasons  for  such  a  limitation  were  obvious.  The  members  of  the 
Conference  were  from  the  beginning  deluged  with  books,  pamphlets,  circulars, 
newspapers,  broadsides,  and  private  letters  on  a  multitude  of  burning  questions 
in  various  parts  of  the  world.  Considerable  numbers  of  men  and  wom.en  devoted 
to  urging  these  questions  came  to  The  Hague  or  gave  notice  of  their  coming. 

It  was  very  generally  believed  in  the  Conference  that  the  admission  of  any 
question  not  strictly  within  the  limits  proposed  by  the  two  circulars  above  men- 
tioned would  open  the  door  to  all  these  proposals  above  referred  to,  and  that  this 
might  lead  to  endless  confusion,  to  heated  debate,  perhaps  even  to  the  wreck 
of  the  Conference,  and  consequently  to  a  long  postponement  of  the  objects  which 
both  those  who  summoned  it  and  those  who  entered  it  had  directly  in  view. 

It  was  at  first  held  by  very  many  members  of  the  Conference  that  under  the 
proper  application  of  the  above  rule  the  proposal  made  by  the  American 
commission  could  not  be  received.  It  required  much  and  earnest  argument  on 
our  part  to  change  this  view,  but  finally  the  memorial  from  our  commission, 
which  stated  fully  the  historical  and  actual  relation  of  the  United  States  to  the 
whole  subject,  was  received,  referred  to  the  appropriate  comfnittee,  and  finally 
brought  by  it  before  the  Conference. 

In  that  body  it  was  listened  to  with  close  attention  and  the  speech  of  the 
chairman  of  the  committee,  who  is  the  eminent  president  of  the  Venezuelan  arbi- 
tration tribunal  now  in  session  at  Paris,  paid  a  hearty  tribute  to  the  historical 
adhesion  of  the  United  States  to  the  great  principle  concerned.  He  then  moved 
that  the  subject  be  referred  to  a  future  Conference.  This  motion  we  accepted 
and  seconded,  taking  occasion  in  doing  so  to  restate  the  Ahierican  doctrine  on  the 
subject,  with  its  claims  on  all  the  nations  represented  at  the  Conference. 


60  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

The  commission  was  thus,  as  we  believe,  faithful  to  one  of  the  oldest  of 
American  traditions,  and  was  able  at  least  to  keep  the  subject  before  the  worlds 
The  way  is  paved  also  for  a  future  careful  consideration  of  the  subject  in  all  its 
bearings  and  under  more  propitious  circumstances. 

The  conclusions  of  the  Peace  Conference  at  The  Hague  took  complete  and 
definite  shape  in  the  Final  Act  laid  before  the  delegates  on  July  29  for  their  sig- 
nature. This  act  embodied  three  conventions,  three  declarations,  and  seven  reso- 
lutions, as  follows : 

First.  A  Convention  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes. 
This  was  signed  by  sixteen  delegations,  as  follows :  Belgium,  Denmark,  Spain, 
United  States  of  America,  Mexico,  France,  Greece,  Montenegro,  the  Netherlands, 
Persia,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Russia,  Siam,  Sweden  and  Norway,  and  Bulgaria. 
There  was  adjoined  to  the  signatures  of  the  United  States  delegation  a 
reference  to  our  declaration  above  referred  to,  made  in  open  Conference  on  July 
25   and  recorded  in  the  proceedings  of  that  day.^ 

Second.  A  Convention  concerning  the  laws  and  customs  of  war  on  land. 
This  was  signed  by  fifteen  delegations,  as  follows:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Spain, 
Mexico,  France,  Greece,  Montenegro,  the  Netherlands,  Persia,  Portugal,  Rou- 
mania, Russia,  Siam,  Sweden  and  Norway  and  Bulgaria. 

The  United  States  delegation  refers  the  matter  to  the  Government  at  Wash- 
ington, with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  there  signed. 

Third.  A  Convention  for  the  adaptation  to  maritime  warfare  of  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Geneva  Conference  of  1864.  This  was  signed  by  fifteen  delegations, 
as  follows:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Spain,  Mexico,  France,  Greece,  Montenegro,  the 
Netherlands,  Persia,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Russia,  Siam,  Sweden  and  Norway, 
and  Bulgaria. 

The  United  States  representatives  refer  it,  without  recommendation,  to  the 
Government  at  Washington. 

The  three  Declarations  were  as  follows: 

First.  A  Declaration  prohibiting  the  throwing  of  projectiles  and  explosives 
from  balloons  or  by  other  new  analogous  means,  such  prohibition  to  be  effective 
during  five  years.  This  was  signed  by  seventeen  delegations,  as  follows:  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  Spain,  the  United  States  of  America,  Mexico,  France,  Greece, 
Montenegro,  the  Netherlands,  Persia,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Russia,  Siam,  Sweden 
and  Norway,  Turkey,  and  Bulgaria. 

Second.  A  Declaration  prohibiting  the  use  of  projectiles  having  as  their 
sole  object  the  diffusion  of  asphyxiating  or  dele'terious  gases.  This,  for  reasons 
given  in  the  accompanying  documents,  the  American  delegation  did  not  sign. 
It  was  signed  by  sixteen  delegations,  as  follows:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Spain, 
Mexico,  France,  Greece,  Montenegro,  the  Netherlands,  Persia,  Portugal,  Rou- 
mania, Russia,  Siam,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Turkey,  and  Bulgaria. 


^For  the  text  of  this  declaration,  see  post,  p.  60. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  -  61 

Third.  A  Declaration  prohibiting  the  use  of  bullets  which  expand  or  flatten 
easily  in  the  human  body,  as  illustrated  by  certain  given  details  of  construction. 
This,  for  technical  reasons  also  fully  stated  in  the  report,  the  American  delega- 
tion did  not  sign.  It  was  signed  by  fifteen  delegations,  as  follows:  Belgium, 
Denmark,  Spain,  Mexico,  France,  Greece,  Montenegro,  the  Netherlands,  Persia, 
Houmania,  Russia,  Siam,  Sweden  and  Norway,  Turkey,  and  Bulgaria. 

The  seven  resolutions  were  as  follows : 

First.  A  resolution  that  the  limitation  of  tbe  military' charges  which  at  pres- 
ent so  oppress  the  world  is  greatly  to  be  desired,  for  the  increase  of  the  material 
and  moral  welfare  of  mankind. 

This  ended  the  action  of  the  Conference  in  relation  to  matters  considered  by 
it  upon  their  merits.  In  addition  the  Conference  passed  the  following  resolutions, 
for  all  of  which  the  United  States  delegation  voted,  referring  various  matters  to 
the  consideration  of  the  Powers  or  to  future  conference.  Upon  the  last  five 
resolutions  a  few  Powers  abstained  from  voting. 

The  second  resolution  was  as  follows:  The  Conference  taking  into  consider- 
ation the  preliminary  steps  taken  by  the  Federal  Government  of  Switzerland  for 
the  revision  of  the  Convention  of  Geneva,  expresses  the  wish  that  there  should 
"be  in  a  short  time  a  meeting  of  a  special  Conference  having  for  its  object  the 
revision  of  that  convention. 

This  resolution  was  voted  unanimously. 

Third.  The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  the  question  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  neutrals  should  be  considered  at  another  conference. 

Fourth.  The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  questions  relative  to  mus- 
kets and  marine  artillery,  such  as  have  been  examined  by  it,  should  be  made  the 
subject  of  study  on  the  part  of  the  Governments  with  a  view  of  arriving  at  an 
agreement  concerning  the  adoption  of  new  types  and  calibers. 

Fifth.  The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  the  Governments,  taking  into 
account  all  the  propositions  made  at  this  Conference,  should  study  the  possibility 
of  an  agreement  concerning  the  limitation  of  armed  forces  on  land  and  sea  and 
of  war  budgets. 

Sixth.  The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  a  proposition  having  for  its 
object  the  declaration  of  immunity  of  private  property  in  war  on  the  high  seas 
should  be  referred  for  examination  to  another  conference. 

Seventh.  The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  the  proposition  of  regu- 
lating the  question  of  bombardment  of  ports,  cities,  or  villages  by  a  naval  force 
should  be  referred  for  examination  to  another  conference. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  conditions  upon  which  Powers  not  represented  at 
the  Conference  can  adhere  to  the  Convention  for  the  peaceful  regulation  of  inter- 
national conflicts  is  to  "form  the  subject  of  a  later  agreement  between  the  con- 
tracting Powers."  This  provision  reflects  the  outcome  of  a  three  days'  debate  in  the 


62  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

drafting  committee  as  to  whether  this  convention  should  be  absolutely  open  or 
open  only  with  the  consent  of  the  contracting  Powers.  England  and  Italy  strenu- 
ously supported  the  latter  view.  It  soon  became  apparent  that  under  the  guise  of 
general  propositions  the  committee  was  discussing  political  questions  of  great 
importance  at  least  to  certain  Powers.  Under  these  circumstances  the  representa- 
tives of  the  United  States  took  no  part  in  the  discussion,  but  supported  by  their 
vote  the  view  that  the  convention,  in  its  nature,  involved  reciprocal  obligations; 
and  also  the  conclusion  that  political  questions  had  no  place  in  the  Conference, 
and  must  be  left  to  be  decided  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Powers  repre- 
sented there. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  this  action  excludes  from  immediate  adherence  to 
this  convention  our  sister  republics  of  Central  and  South  America,  with  whom 
the  United  States  is  already  in  similar  relations  by  the  Pan  American  Treaty. 
It  is  hoped  that  an  arrangement  will  soon  be  made  which  will  enable  these  States, 
if  they  so  desire,  to  enter  into  the  same  relations  as  ourselves  with  the  Powers 
represented  at  the  Conference. 

This  report  should  not  be  closed  without  an  acknowledgment  of  the  great 
and  constant  courtesy  of  the  Government  of  the  Netherlands  and  all  its  repre- 
sentatives to  the  American  commission  as  well  as  to  all  the  members  of  the 
Conference.  In  every  way  they  have  sought  to  aid  us  in  our  work  and  to  make 
our  stay  agreeable  to  us.  The  accommodations  they  have  provided  for  the  Con- 
ference have  enhanced  its  dignity  and  increased  its  efficiency. 

It  may  also  be  well  to  put  on  record  that  from  the  entire  Conference,  without 
exception,  we  have  constantly  received  marks  of  kindness,  and  that  although  so 
many  nations  with  different  interests  were  represented,  there  has  not  been  in  any 
session,  whether  of  the  Conference  or  of  any  of  the  committees  or  subcommittees, 
anything  other  than  calm  and  courteous  debate. 

The  text  of  the  Final  Act  of  the  various  conventions  and  declarations  re- 
ferred to  therein  is  appended  to  this  report.^ 

All  of  which  is  most  respectfully  submitted. 

Andrew  D.  White,  President. 

Se:th  Low. 

Stanford  Newel. 

A.  T.  Mahan, 

William  Crozier. 

Frederick  W.  Holls,  Secretary. 


^  Not  printed. 


XV 

Reservation  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Convention  for  the 
Pacific  Settlement  of  International  Disputes^  1899^ 

Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require 
the  United  States  of  America  to  depart  from  its  traditional  policy  of  not  in- 
truding upon,  interfering  with,  or  entangling  itself  in  the  political  questions  or 
policy  or  internal  administration  of  any  foreign  State;  nor  shall  anything  con- 
tained in  the  said  Convention  be  construed  to  imply  a  relinquishment  by  the  United 
States  of  America  of  its  traditional  attitude  toward  purely  American  questions. 


^  XVI 

The  Second  Hague  Peace  Conference,  1907:  American  Instructions 

and  Report 

INSTRUCTIONS  TO  THE  AMERICAN  DELEGATES  TO  THE  HAGUE 
CONFERENCE  OF  19072 

Department  of  Stat^, 
Washington,  May  jj,  1907. 

To  Messrs.  Joseph  H.  Choate,  Horace  Porter,  Uriah  M.  Rose,  David  Jayne  Hill, 
George  B.  Davis,  Charles  S.  Sperry,  and  William  I.  Buchanan. 

Gentlemen:  You  have  been  appointed  delegates  plenipotentiary  to  repre- 
sent the  United  States  at  a  Second  Peace  Conference  which  is  to  meet  at  The 
Hague  on  the  15th  of  June,  1907. 

The  need  of  such  a  Conference  was  suggested  to  the  Powers  signatory  to  the 
acts  of  the  Hague  Conference  of  1899  by  President  Roosevelt  in  a  circular  note 
by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Hay,  dated  October  21,  1904,  and  the  project  met  with  a 
general  expression  of  assent  and  sympathy  from  the  Powers ;  but  its  realization 
was  postponed  because  of  the  then  existing  war  between  Japan  and  Russia.  The 
conclusion  of  the  peace  wjiich  ended  that  war  presenting  a  favorable  moment 
for  further  developing  and  systematizing  the  work  of  the  First  Conference,  the 
initiative  was  appropriately  transferred  to  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  Emperor 


^  Proces-verbaux  of  the  First  Hague  Peace  Conference,  pt.  i,  p.  69.  This  declaration 
was  made  July  25,  1899,  by  the  delegation  of  the  United  States  of  America.  The  reservation 
was  reaffirmed  July  29  on  signing  the  Convention  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  international 
disputes,  and  was  expressly  maintained  by  the  American  Government  when  it  ratified  the 
Convention. 

^Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1907,  pt.  2,  p.  1128. 

63 


64  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

of  Russia  as  initiator  of  the  First  Conference.  The  Russian  Government  pro- 
posed that  the  program  of  the  contemplated  meeting  should  include  the  following 
topics : 

1.  Improvements  to  be  made  in  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  rela- 
tive to  the  peaceful  settlement  of  international  disputes  as  regards  the  court 
of  arbitration  and  the  international  commissions  of  inquiry. 

2.  Additions  to  be  made  to  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  of  1899 
relative  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  war  on  land — among  others,  those  con- 
cerning the  opening  of  hostilities,  the  rights  of  neutrals  on  land,  etc.  Declar- 
ations of  1899.    One  of  these  having  expired,  question  of  its  being  revived. 

3.  Framing  of  a  convention  relative  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  maritime 
warfare,  concerning — 

The  special  operations  of  maritime  warfare,  such  as  the  bombardment 
of  ports,  cities,  and  villages  by  a  naval  force ;  the  laying  of  torpedoes,  etc. 

The  transformation  of  merchant  vessels  into  war-ships. 

The  private  property  of  belligerents  at  sea. 

The  length  of  time  to  be  granted  to  merchant  ships  for  their  departure 
from  ports  of  neutrals  or  of  the  enemy  after  the  opening  of  hostilities. 

The  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  at  sea ;  among  others,  the  questions  of 
contraband,  the  rules  applicable  to  belligerent  vessels  in  neutral  ports;  de- 
struction, in  cases  of  vis  major,  of  neutral  merchant  vessels  captured  as 
prizes. 

In  the  said  convention  to  be  drafted,  there  would  be  introduced  the 
provisions  relative  to  war  on  land  that  would  also  be  applicable  to  maritime 
warfare. 

4.  Additions  to  be  made  to  the  Convention  of  1899  for  the  adaptation 
to  maritime  warfare  of  the  principles  of  the  Geneva  Convention  of  1864. 

We  are  advised  by  the  Ambassador  of  Russia,  in  a  note  dated  March 
22/ April  4,  1907,  that  all  of  the  Powers  have  declared  their  adhesion  to  this  tenta- 
tive program.  The  following  remarks,  however,  have  been  made  in  respect 
thereof : 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  reserved  to  itself  the  liberty  of 
submitting  to  the  Conference  two  additional  questions,  viz.,  the  reduction  or 
limitation  of  armaments  and  the  attainment  of  an  agreement  to  observe  some 
limitations  upon  the  use  of  force  for  the  collection  or  ordinary  public  debts  arising 
out  of  contracts. 

The  Spanish  Government  has  expressed  a  desire  to  discuss  the  limitation  of 
armaments. 

The  British  Government  has  given  notice  that  it  attaches  great  importance  to 
having  the  question  of  expenditures  for  armament  discussed  at  the  Conference, 
and  has  reserved  to  itself  the  right  of  raising  it. 

The  Governments  of  Bolivia,  Denmark,  Greece,  and  the  Netherlands  have 
reserved  to  themselves,  in  a  general  way,  the  right  to  submit  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Conference  subjects  not  specially  enumerated  in  the  program. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  65 

Several  Governments  have  reserved  the  right  to  take  no  part  in  any  discus- 
sion which  may  appear  unlikely  to  produce  any  useful  result. 

The  Russian  note  proposing  the  program  declared  that  the  deliberations  of 
the  contemplated  meetings  should  not  deal  with  the  political  relations  of  the  dif- 
ferent States,  or  the  condition  of  things  established  by  treaties ;  and  that  neither 
the  solution  of  the  questions  brought  up  for  discussion,  nor  the  order  of  their 
discussion,  nor  the  form  to  be  given  to  the  decisions  reached,  should  be  deter- 
mined in  advance  of  the  Conference.  We  understand  this  view  to  have  been 
accepted. 

In  regard  to  the  two  questions  which  were  not  included  in  the  proposed 
program,  but  which  the  United  States  has  reserved  the  right  to  present  to  the 
Conference,  we  understand  that  notice  of  the  reservation  has  been  communicated 
to  all  the  Powers  by  note  similar  to  that  from  the  Russian  Ambassador  dated 
March  22/April  4,  1907 ;  so  that  each  Power  has  had  full  opportunity  to  instruct 
its  delegates  in  respect  thereof.  The  United  States  understands  that  as  to  the 
topics  included  in  the  program  the  acceptance  of  the  program  involves  a  deter- 
mination that  such  topics  shall  be  considered  by  the  Conference,  subject  to  the 
reserved  rights  of  particular  Powers  to  refrain  from  discussion  of  any  topic  as 
to  which  it  deems  that  discussion  will  not  be  useful ;  but  that  as  to  the  two  topics 
which  we  have  reserved  the  right  to  present,  there  has  been  no  determination 
one  way  or  the  other,  the  question  whether  they  shall  be  considered  by  the  Con- 
ference remaining  for  the  determination  of  the  Conference  itself  in  case  they 
shall  be  presented. 

It  is  not  expedient  that  you  should  be  limited  by  too  rigid  instructions  upon 
the  various  questions  which  are  to  be  discussed,  for  such  a  course,  if  pursued 
generally  with  all  the  delegates,  would  make  the  discussion  useless  and  the  Con- 
ference a  mere  formality.  You  will,  however,  keep  in  mind  the  following  observa- 
tions regarding  the  general  policy  of  the  United  States  upon  these  questions : 

1.  In  the  discussions  upon  every  question  it  is  important  to  remember  that 
the  object  of  the  Conference  is  agreement,  and  not  compulsion.  If  such  Confer- 
ences are  to  be  made  occasions  for  trying  to  force  nations  into  positions  which 
they  consider  against  their  interests,  the  Powers  can  not  be  expected  to  send  rep- 
resentatives to  them.  It  is  important  also  that  the  agreements  reached  shall  be 
genuine  and  not  reluctant.  Otherwise  they  will  inevitably  fail  to  receive  approval 
when  submitted  for  the  ratification  of  the  Powers  represented.  Comparison  of 
views  and  frank  and  considerate  explanation  and  discussion  may  frequently  re- 
solve doubts,  obviate  difficulties,  and  lead  to  real  agreement  upon  matters  which 
at  the  outset  have  appeared  insurmountable.  It  is  not  wise,  howev-er,  to  carry  this 
process  to  the  point  of  irritation.  After  reasonable  discussion,  if  no  agreement 
is  reached,  it  is  better  to  lay  the  subject  aside,  or  refer  it  to  some  future  Confer- 
ence in  the  hope  that  intermediate  consideration  may  dispose  of  the  objections. 
Upon  some  questions  where  an  agreement  by  only  a  part  of  the  Powers  repre- 


66  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

sented  would  in  itself  be  useful,  such  an  agreement  may  be  made,  but  it  should 
always  be  with  the  most  unreserved  recognition  that  the  other  Powers  withhold 
their  concurrence  with  equal  propriety  and  right. 

The  immediate  results  of  such  a  Conference  must  always  be  limited  to  a 
small  part  of  the  field  which  the  more  sanguine  have  hoped  to  see  covered ;  but 
each  successive  Conference  will  make  the  positions  reached  in  the  preceding  Con- 
ference its  point  of  departure,  and  will  bring  to  the  consideration  of  further 
advances  toward  international  agreement  opinions  affected  by  the  acceptance 
and  application  of  the  previous  agreements.  Each  Conference  will  inevitably 
make  further  progress  and,  by  successive  steps,  results  may  be  accomplished  which 
have  formerly  appeared  impossible. 

You  should  keep  always  in  mind  the  promotion  of  this  continuous  process 
through  which  the  progressive  development  of  international  justice  and  peace 
may  be  carried  on;  and  you  should  regard  the  work  of  the  Second  Conference, 
not  merely  with  reference  to  the  definite  results  to  be  reached  in  that  Conference, 
but  also  with  reference  to  the  foundations  which  may  be  laid  for  further  results 
in  future  Conferences.  It  may  well  be  that  among  the  most  valuable  services 
rendered  to  civilization  by  this  Second  Conference  will  be  found  the  progress 
made  in  matters  upon  which  the  delegates  reach  no  definite  agreement. 

With  this  view  you  will  favor  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  by  the  Conference 
providing  for  the  holding  of  further  Conferences  within  fixed  periods  and  arrang- 
ing the  machinery  by  which  such  Conferences  may  be  called  and  the  terms  of 
the  program  may  be  arranged,  without  awaiting  any  new  and  specific  initiative  on 
the  part  of  the  Powers  or  any  one  of  them. 

Encouragement  for  such  a  course  is  to  be  found  in  the  successful  working 
of  a  similar  arrangement  for  international  conferences  of  the  American  republics. 
The  second  American  Conference,  held  in  Mexico  in  1901-2,  adopted  a  resolution 
providing  that  a  third  conference  should  meet  within  five  years  and  committed 
the  time  and  place  and  the  program  and  necessary  details  to  the  Department  of 
State  and  representatives  of  the  American  States  in  Washington.  Under  this 
authority  the  Third  Conference  was  called  and  held  in  Rio  de  Janeiro  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1906  and  accomplished  results  of  substantial  value.  That  Conference 
adopted  the  following  resolution: 

The  governing  board  of  the  International  Bureau  of  American  Republics 
(composed  of  the  same  official  representatives  in  Washington)  is  authorized 
to  designate  the  place  at  which  the  Fourth  International  Conference  shall 
meet,  which  meeting  shall  be  within  the  next  five  years;  to  provide  for  the 
drafting  of  the  program  and  regulations  and  to  take  into  consideration  all 
other  necessary  details;  and  to  set  another  date  in  case  the  meeting  of  the 
said  Conference  can  not  take  place  within  the  prescribed  limit  of  time. 

There  is  no  apparent  reason  to  doubt  that  a  similar  arrangement  for  suc- 
cessive general  international  conferences  of  all  the  civilized  Powers  would  prove 
as  practicable  and  as  useful  as  in  the  case  of  the  twenty-one  American  States. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  67 

2.  The  policy  of  the  United  States  to  avoid  entangling  alliances  and  to 
refrain  from  any  interference  or  participation  in  the  political  affairs  of  Europe 
must  be  kept  in  mind,  and  may  impose  upon  you  some  degree  of  reserve  in 
respect  of  some  of  the  questions  which  are  discussed  by  the  Conference. 

In  the  First  Conference  the  American  delegates  accompanied  their  vote  upon 
the  report  of  the  committee  regarding  the  limitation  of  armaments  by  the  follow- 
ing declaration : 

That  the  United  States,  in  so  doing,  does  not  express  any  opinion  as 
to  the  course  to  be  taken  by  the  States  of  Europe.  This  declaration  is  not 
meant  to  indicate  mere  indifference  to  a  difficult  problem,  because  it  does 
not  affect  the  United  States  immediately,  but  expresses  a  determination  to 
refrain  from  enunciating  opinions  upon  matters  into  which,  as  concerning 
Europe  alone,  the  United  States  has  no  claim  to  enter.  The  words  drawn 
up  by  M.  Bourgeois,  and  adopted  by  the  first  commission,  received  also  the 
cordial  interest  and  sympathy  with  which  the  United  States,  while  carefully 
abstaining  from  anything  that  might  resemble  interference,  regards  all  move- 
ments that  are  thought  to  tend  to  the  welfare  of  Europe. 

Before  signing  the  arbitration  convention  of  the  First  Conference  the  dele- 
gates of  the  United  States  put  upon  record  the  following  declaration : 

Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require 
the  United  States  of  America  to  depart  from  its  traditional  policy  of  not 
intruding  upon,  interfering  with,  or  entangling  itself  in  the  political  ques- 
tions or  policy  or  internal  administration  of  any  foreign  State;  nor  shall 
anything  contained  in  the  said  Convention  be  construed  to  imply  a  relin- 
quishment by  the  United  States  of  America  of  its  traditional  attitude  toward 
purely  American  questions. 

These  declarations  have  received  the  approval  of  this  Government,  and  they 
should  be  regarded  by  you  as  illustrating  the  caution  which  you  are  to  exercise 
in  preventing  our  participation  in  matters  of  general  and  world-wide  concern 
from  drawing  us  into  the  political  affairs  of  Europe. 

3.  The  attitude  of  the  United  States  as  to  consideration  of  the  subject  of 
limiting  armaments  was  stated  in  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  Rus- 
sian ambassador  dated  June  7,  1906.  That  letter,  after  expressing  assent  to  the 
enumeration  of  topics  in  the  Russian  programme,  proceeded  to  say : 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  is,  however,  so  deeply  in  sympathy 
with  the  noble  and  humanitarian  views  which  moved  His  Imperial  Majesty 
to  the  calling  of  the  First  Peace  Conference  that  it  would  greatly  regret  to 
see  those  views  excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  Second  Conference. 
[Quoting  from  the  call  for  the  First  Conference.] 

The  truth  and  value  of  the  sentiments  thus  expressed  are  surely  inde- 
pendent of  the  special  conditions  and  obstacles  to  their  realization  by  which 
they  may  be  confronted  at  any  particular  time.     It  is  true  that  the  First 


68  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Conference  at  The  Hague  did  not  find  it  practicable  to  give  them  effect,  but 
long-continued  and  patient  effort  has  always  been  found  necessary  to  bring 
mankind  into  conformity  with  great  ideals.  It  would  be  a  misfortune  if  that 
effort,  so  happily  and  magnanimously  inaugurated  by  His  Imperial  Majesty, 
were  to  be  abandoned. 

This  Government  is  not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  dwell  in  comparative  security,  partly  by  reason  of  their  isola- 
tion and  partly  because  they  have  never  become  involved  in  the  numerous 
questions  to  which  many  centuries  of  close  neighborhood  have  given  rise  in 
Europe.  They  are,  therefore,  free  from  the  apprehensions  of  attack  which 
are  to  so  great  an  extent  the  cause  of  great  armaments,  and  it  would  ill 
become  them  to  be  insistent  or  forward  in  a  matter  so  much  more  vital  to 
the  nations  of  Europe  than  to  them.  Nevertheless,  it  sometimes  happens 
that  the  very  absence  of  a  special  interest  in  a  subject  enables  a  nation  to 
make  suggestions  and  urge  considerations  which  a  more  deeply  interested 
nation  might  hesitate  to  present.  The  Government  of  the  United  States, 
therefore,  feels  it  to  be  its  duty  to  reserve  for  itself  the  liberty  to  propose  to 
the  Second  Peace  Conference,  as  one  of  the  subjects  of  consideration,  the 
reduction  or  limitation  of  armaments,  in  the  hope  that,  if  nothing  further 
can  be  accomplished,  some  slight  advance  may  be  made  toward  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  lofty  conception  which  actuated  the  Emperor  of  Russia  in  calling 
the  First  Conference. 

The  First  Conference  adopted  the  following  resolutions : 

The  Conference  is  of  opinion  that  the  restriction  of  military  charges, 
which  are  at  present  a  heavy  burden  on  the  world,  is  extremely  desirable  for 
the  increase  of  the  material  and  moral  welfare  of  mankind. 

The  Conference  expresses  the  wish  that  the  Governments,  takmg  mto 
consideration  the  proposals  made  at  the  Conference,  may  examine  the  possi- 
bility of  an  agreement  as  to  the  limitation  of  armed  forces  by  land  and  sea 
and  of  war  budgets. 

Under  these  circumstances  this  Government  has  been  and  still  is  of  the 
opinion  that  this  subject  should  be  regarded  as  unfinished  business,  and  that  the 
Second  Conference  should  ascertain  and  give  full  consideration  to  the  results  of 
such  examination  as  the  Governments  may  have  given  to  the  possibility  of  an 
agreement  pursuant  to  the  wish  expressed  by  the  First  Conference.  We  think 
that  there  should  be  a  sincere  effort  to  learn  whether,  by  conference  and  discus- 
sion, some  practicable  formula  may  not  be  worked  out  which  would  have  the 
effect  of  limiting  or  retarding  the  increase  of  armaments. 

There  is,  however,  reason  to  believe  not  only  that  there  has  been  the  examina- 
tion by  the  respective  Governments  for  which  the  First  Conference  expressed 
a  wish,  but  that  the  discussion  of  its  results  has  been  forestalled  by  a  process  of 
direct  communication  between  a  majority  of  the  Governments  having  the  greatest 
immediate  interest  in  the  subject.  These  communications  have  been  going  on 
actively  among  the  different  Governments  for  nearly  a  year,  and  as  a  result 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  69 

at  least  four  of  the  European  Powers  have  announced  their  unwillingness  to 
continue  the  discussion  in  the  Conference.  We  regret  that  the  discussion  should 
have  taken  place  in  this  way  rather  than  at  the  Conference,  for  we  are  satisfied 
that  a  discussion  at  the  Conference  would  have  afforded  a  greater  probability  of 
progress  toward  the  desired  result.    The  fact,  however,  cannot  be  ignored. 

If  any  European  Power  proposes  consideration  of  the  subject,  you  will  vote 
in  favor  of  consideration  and  do  everything  you  properly  can  to  promote  it.  If,, 
on  the  other  hand,  no  European  Power  proposes  consideration  of  the  subject,  and 
no  new  and  affirmative  evidence  is  presented  to  satisfy  you  that  a  useful  purpose 
would  be  subserved  by  your  making  such  a  proposal,  you  may  assume  that  the 
limitations  above  stated  by  way  of  guidance  to  your  action  preclude  you  from 
asking  the  Conference  to  consider  the  subject. 

4.  The  other  subject  which  the  United  States  specifically  reserved  the  right 
to  propose  for  consideration  is  the  attainment  of  an  agreement  to  observe  some 
limitation  upon  the  use  of  force  for  the  collection  of  ordinary  public  debts  arising 
out  of  contract. 

It  has  long  been  the  established  policy  of  the  United  States  not  to  use  its 
army  and  navy  for  the  collection  of  ordinary  contract  debts  due  to  its  citizens  by 
other  Governments.  This  Government  has  not  considered  the  use  of  force  for 
such  a  purpose  consistent  with  that  respect  for  the  independent  sovereignty  of 
other  members  of  the  family  of  nations  which  is  the  most  important  principle  of 
international  law  and  the  chief  protection  of  weak  nations  against  the  oppression 
of  the  strong.  It  seems  to  us  that  the  practice  is  injurious  in  its  general  effect 
upon  the  relation  of  nations  and  upon  the  welfare  of  weak  and  disordered  States, 
whose  development  ought  to  be  encouraged  in  the  interests  of  civilization;  that 
it  offers  frequent  temptation  to  bullying  and  oppression  and  to  unnecessary  and 
unjustifiable  warfare.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  non-payment  of  such  debts 
may  be  accompanied  by  such  circumstances  of  fraud  and  wrong-doing  or  viola- 
tion of  treaties  as  to  justify  the  use  of  force;  but  we  should  be  glad  to  see  an 
international  consideration  of  this  subject  which  would  discriminate  between  such 
cases  and  the  simple  non-performance  of  a  contract  with  a  private  person,  and 
a  resolution  in  favor  of  reliance  upon  peaceful  means  in  cases  of  the  latter  class. 

The  Third  International  Conference  of  the  American  States,  held  at  Rio  de 
Janeiro  in  August,  1906,  resolved: 

To  recommend  to  the  Governments  therein  that  they  consider  the  point 
of  inviting  the  Second  Peace  Conference  at  The  Hague  to  examine  the  ques- 
tion of  the  compulsory  collection  of  public  debts,  and,  in  general,  means 
tending  to  diminish  between  nations  conflicts  having  a  peculiarly  pecuniary 
origin. 

You  will  ask  for  the  consideration  of  this  subject  by  the  Conference.  It  is 
not  probable  that  in  the  first  instance  all  the  nations  represented  at  the  Conference 


70  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

will  be  willing  to  go  as  far  in  the  establishment  of  limitations  upon  the  use  of 
force  in  the  collection  of  this  class  of  debts  as  the  United  States  would  like  to 
have  them  go,  and  there  may  be  serious  objection  to  the  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject as  a  separate  and  independent  topic.  If  you  find  such  objections  insurmount- 
able, you  will  urge  the  adoption  of  provisions  under  the  head  of  arbitration  look- 
ing to  the  establishment  of  such  limitations.  The  adoption  of  some  such  pro- 
visions as  the  following  may  be  suggested,  and,  if  no  better  solution  seems  prac- 
ticable, should  be  urged : 

The  use  of  force  for  the  collection  of  a  contract  debt  alleged  to  be  due 
by  the  Government  of  any  country  to  a  citizen  of  any  other  country  is  not 
permissible  until  after — 

1.  The  justice  and  amount  of  the  debt  shall  have  been  determined  by 
arbitration,  if  demanded  by  the  alleged  debtor. 

2.  The  time  and  manner  of  payment,  and  the  security,  if  any,  to  be 
given  pending  payment,  shall  have  been  fixed  by  arbitration,  if  demanded  by 
the  alleged  debtor. 

5.  In  the  general  field  of  arbitration  two  lines  of  advance  are  clearly  indi- 
cated. The  first  is  to  provide  for  obligatory  arbitration  as  broad  in  scope  as  now 
appears  to  be  practicable,  and  the  second  is  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the 
system  so  that  nations  may  more  readily  have  recourse  to  it  voluntarily. 

You  are  familiar  with  the  numerous  expressions  in  favor  of  the  settlement  of 
international  disputes  by  arbitration  on  the  part  both  of  the  Congress  and  of  the 
Executive  of  the  United  States. 

So  many  separate  treaties  of  arbitration  have  been  made  between  individual 
countries  that  there  is  little  cause  to  doubt  that  the  time  is  now  ripe  for  a  decided 
advance  in  this  direction.  This  condition,  which  brings  the  subject  of  a  general 
treaty  for  obligatory  arbitration  into  the  field  of  practical  discussion,  is  undoubt- 
edly largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Powers  generally  in  the  First  Hague  Con- 
ference committed  themselves  to  the  principle  of  the  pacific  settlement  of  interna- 
tional questions  in  the  admirable  convention  for  voluntary  arbitration  then 
adopted. 

The  Rio  Conference  of  last  summer  provided  for  the  arbitration  of  all  pecu- 
niary claims  among  the  American  States.  This  convention  has  been  ratified  by 
the  President,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

In  December,  1904,  and  January,  1905,  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Hay,  concluded 
separate  arbitration  treaties  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  France, 
Germany,  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Switzerland,  Austria-Hungary,  Sweden  and 
Norway,  and  Mexico.  On  the  11th  of  February,  1905,  the  Senate  advised  and 
consented  to  the  ratification  of  these  treaties  with  an  amendment  which  has  had 
the  effect  of  preventing  the  exchange  of  ratifications.  The  amendment,  however, 
did  not  relate  to  the  scope  or  character  of  the  arbitration  to  which  the  President 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  71 

had  agreed  and  the  Senate  consented.  You  will  be  justified,  therefore,  in  as- 
suming that  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration  in  the  terms,  or  substantially  in  the 
terms,  of  the  series  of  treaties  which  I  have  mentioned  will  meet  the  approval  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States.  The  first  article  of  each  of  these  treaties 
was  as  follows: 

Differences  which  may  arise  of  a  legal  nature,  or  relating  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  treaties  existing  between  the  two  contracting  parties,  and  which 
it  may  not  have  been  possible  to  settle  by  diplomacy,  shall  be  referred  to  the 
permanent  court  of  arbitration  established  at  The  Hague  by  the  Convention 
of  the  29th  July,  1899,  provided,  nevertheless,  that  they  do  not  affect  the 
vital  interests,  the  independence,  or  the  honor  of  the  two  contracting  States, 
and  do  not  concern  the  interests  of  third  parties. 

To  this  extent  you  may  go  in  agreeing  to  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration,  and 
to  secure  such  a  treaty  you  should  use  your  best  and  most  earnest  efforts. 

Such  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration  necessarily  leaves  to  be  determined  in 
each  particular  case  what  the  questions  at  issue  between  the  two  Governments 
are,  and  whether  those  questions  come  within  the  scope  of  the  treaty  or  within 
the  exceptions,  and  what  shall  be  the  scope  of  the  Powers  of  the  arbitrators. 
The  Senate  amendment  which  prevented  the  ratification  of  each  of  these  treaties 
applied  only  to  another  article  of  the  treaty  which  provided  for  special  agreements 
in  regard  to  these  matters  and  involved  only  the  question  who  should  act  for  the 
United  States  in  making  such  special  agreements.  To  avoid  having  the  same 
question  arise  regarding  any  general  treaty  of  arbitration  which  you  may  sign 
at  The  Hague,  your  signature  should  be  accompanied  by  an  explanation  sub- 
stantially as  follows : 

In  signing  the  general  arbitration  treaty  the  delegates  of  the  United 
States  desire  to  have  it  understood  that  the  special  agreements  provided  for 
in  article  —  of  said  treaty  will  be  subject  to  submission  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States. 

The  method  in  which  arbitration  can  be  made  more  effective,  so  that  nations 
may  be  more  ready  to  have  recourse  to  it  voluntarily  and  to  enter  into  treaties  by 
which  they  bind  themselves  to  submit  to  it,  is  indicated  by  observation  of  the 
weakness  of  the  system  now  apparent.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  principal 
objection  to  arbitration  rests  not  upon  the  unwillingness  of  nations  to  submit  their 
controversies  to  impartial  arbitration,  but  upon  an  apprehension  that  the  arbi- 
trations to  which  they  submit  may  not  be  impartial.  It  has  been  a  very  general 
practice  for  arbitrators  to  act,  not  as  judges  deciding  questions  of  fact  and  law 
upon  the  record  before  them  under  a  sense  of  judicial  responsibility,  but  as  nego- 
tiators effecting  settlements  of  the  questions  brought  before  them  in  accordance 
with  the  traditions  and  usages  and  subject  to  all  the  considerations  and  influences 
which  affect  diplomatic  agents.     The  two  methods  are  radically  different,  pro- 


72  '  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

ceed  upon  different  standards  of  honorable  obligation,  and  frequently  lead  to 
widely  differing  results.  It  very  frequently  happens  that  a  nation  which  would 
be  very  willing  to  submit  its  differences  to  an  impartial  judicial  determination  is 
unwilling  to  subject  them  to  this  kind  of  diplomatic  process.  If  there  could  be  a 
tribunal  which  would  pass  upon  questions  between  nations  with  the  same  impar- 
tial and  impersonal  judgment  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  gives 
to  questions  arising  between  citizens  of  the  different  States,  or  between  foreign 
citizens  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  nations 
would  be  much  more  ready  to  submit  their  controversies  to  its  decision  than 
they  are  now  to  take  the  chances  of  arbitration.  It  should  be  your  effort  to  bring 
about  in  the  Second  Conference  a  development  of  the  Hague  tribunal  into  a  per- 
manent tribunal  composed  of  judges  who  are  judicial  officers  and  nothing  else, 
who  are  paid  adequate  salaries,  who  have  no  other  occupation,  and  who  will 
devote  their  entire  time  to  the  trial  and  decision  of  international  causes  by  judicial 
methods  and  under  a  sense  of  judicial  responsibility.  These  judges  should  be  so 
selected  from  the  different  countries  that  the  different  systems  of  law  and  pro- 
cedure and  the  principal  languages  shall  be  fairly  represented.  The  court  should 
be  made  of  such  dignity,  consideration,  and  rank  that  the  best  and  ablest  jurists 
will  accept  appointment  to  it,  and  that  the  whole  world  will  have  absolute  confi- 
dence in  its  judgments. 

The  arbitration  convention  signed  at  the  First  Hague  Conference  contained 
no  authority  for  the  adherence  of  non-signatory  Powers,  but  provided : 

The  conditions  on  which  the  Powers  who  were  not  represented  at  the 
International  Peace  Conference  can  adhere  to  the  present  Convention  shall 
form  the  subject  of  a  separate  agreement  among  the  contracting  Powers. 

This  left  all  the  Central  and  South  American  States  outside  of  the  treaty. 
The  United  States  has  from  time  to  time  endeavored  to  secure  an  opportunity  for 
them  to  adhere,  and  it  has  now  been  arranged  that  this  shall  be  accomplished  as  a 
necessary  preliminary  to  their  taking  part  in  the  Second  Conference.  The 
method  arranged  is  that  on  the  day  before  the  opening  of  the  Conference  a  proto- 
col shall  be  signed  by  the  representatives  of  all  the  Powers  signatory  to  the  treaty 
substantially  as  follows : 

The  representatives  at  the  Second  Peace  Conference  of  the  States  sig- 
natories of  the  convention  of  1899  relative  to  the  peaceful  settlement  of  in- 
ternational disputes,  duly  authorized  to  that  effect,  have  agreed  that  in  case 
the  States  that  were  not  represented  at  the  First  Peace  Conference,  but  have 
been  convoked  to  the  present  Conference,  should  notify  the  Government  of 
the  Netherlands  of  their  adhesion  to  the  above-mentioned  convention  they 
shall  be  forthwith  considered  as  having  acceded  thereto. 

It  is  understood  that  substantially  all  the  Central  and  South  American  States 
have  notified  the  Government  of  the  Netherlands  of  their  adherence  to  the  Con- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  11 

vention,  and  upon  the  signing  of  this  protocol  their  notices  will  immediately 
take  effect  and  they  will  become  parties  competent  to  take  part  in  the  discussions 
of  the  Second  Conference  looking  toward  the  amendment  and  extension  of  the 
arbitration  convention.  You  will  sign  the  protocol  in  behalf  of  the  United  States 
pursuant  to  the  full  powers  already  given  you. 

6.  You  will  maintain  the  traditional  policy  of  the  United  States  regarding  the 
immunity  of  private  property  of  belligerents  at  sea. 

On  the  28th  of  April,  1904,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  adopted  the 
following  resolution: 

Resolved  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  that  it  is  desirable,  in  the  interests  of  uniformity 
of  action  by  the  maritime  States  of  the  world  in  time  of  war,  that  the  Presi- 
dent endeavor  to  bring  about  an  understanding  among  the  principal  mari- 
time Powers  with  a  view  of  incorporating  into  the  permanent  law  of  civilized 
nations,  the  principle  of  the  exemption  of  all  private  property  at  sea,  not 
contraband  of  war,  from  capture  or  destruction  by  belligerents.  Approved 
April  28,  1904. 

This  resolution  is  an  expression  of  the  view  taken  by  the  United  States  dur- 
ing its  entire  history.  Such  a  provision  was  incorporated  in  the  treaty  of  1775 
with  Prussia,  signed  by  Benjamin  Franklin,  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  John  Adams, 
and  it  was  proposed  by  the  United  States  as  an  amendment  to  be  added  to  the 
privateering  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris  in  1856.  The  refusal  of  the  other 
Powers  to  accompany  prohibition  of  privateering  by  such  a  provision  caused  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  to  refuse  its  adherence  to  the  declaration. 

The  Congressional  resolution  was  in  response  to  the  recommendation  of 
President  Roosevelt's  message  to  Congress  in  December,  1903,  quoting  and  en- 
forcing a  previous  message  by  President  McKinley  in  December,  1898,  which 
said : 

The  United  States  Government  has  for  many  years  advocated  this  hu- 
mane and  beneficent  principle,  and  is  now  in  a  position  to  recommend  it  to 
other  Powers  without  the  imputation  of  selfish  motives. 

Whatever  may  be  the  apparent  specific  interest  of  this  or  any  other  country  at 
the  moment,  the  principle  thus  declared  is  of  such  permanent  and  universal  impor- 
tance that  no  balancing  of  the  chances  of  probable  loss  or  gain  in  the  immediate 
future  on  the  part  of  any  nation  should  be  permitted  to  outweigh  the  considera- 
tions of  common  benefit  to  civilization  which  call  for  the  adoption  of  such  an 
agreement. 

In  the  First  Peace  Conference  the  subject  of  the  immunity  of  private  prop- 
erty at  sea  was  not  included  in  the  program.  Consideration  of  it  was  urged  by 
the  delegates  of  the  United  States  and  was  supported  by  an  able  presentation  on 


74  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

the  part  of  Mr.  Andrew  D.  White.  The  representatives  of  several  of  the  great 
Powers  declared,  however,  that  in  the  absence  of  instructions  from  their  Govern- 
ments they  could  not  vote  upon  the  subject ;  aad,  under  the  circumstances,  we  must 
consider  that  gratifying  progress  was  made  when  there  was  included  in  the  Final 
Act  of  the  Conference  a  resolution  expressing — 

The  wish  that  the  proposal  which  contemplates  the  declaration  of  the 
inviolability  of  private  property  in  naval  warfare  may  be  referred  to  a  sub- 
sequent Conference  for  consideration. 

The  subject  has  accordingly  been  included  in  the  present  program  and  the 
way  is  open  for  its  consideration. 

It  will  be  appropriate  for  you  to  advocate  the  proposition  formulated  and  pre- 
sented by  the  American  delegates  to  the  First  Conference,  as  follows : 

The  private  property  of  all  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  signatory  Powers, 
with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  shall  be  exempt  from  capture  or 
seizure  on  the  high  seas,  or  elsewhere  by  the  armed  vessels  or  by  the  military 
forces  of  any  of  the  said  signatory  Powers.  But  nothing  herein  contained 
shall  extend  exemption  from  seizure  to  vessels  and  their  cargoes  which  may 
attempt  to  enter  a  port  blockaded  by  the  naval  forces  of  any  of  the  said 
Powers. 

7.  Since  the  code  of  rules  for  the  government  of  military  operations  on  land 
was  adopted  by  the  First  Peace  Conference  there  have  been  occasions  for  its 
application  under  very  severe  conditions,  notably  in  the  South  African  war  and 
the  war  between  Japan  and  Russia.  Doubtless  the  Powers  involved  in  those  con- 
flicts have  had  occasion  to  observe  many  particulars  in  which  useful  additions  or 
improvements  might  be  made.  You  will  consider  their  suggestions  with  a  view  to 
reducing,  so  far  as  is  practicable,  the  evils  of  war  and  protecting  the  rights  of 
neutrals. 

As  to  the  framing  of  a  convention  relative  to  the  customs  of  maritime  war- 
fare, you  are  referred  to  the  naval  war  code  promulgated  in  General  Orders  551 
of  the  Navy  Department  of  June  27,  1900,  which  has  met  with  general  com- 
mendation by  naval  authorities  throughout  the  civilized  world,  and  which,  in 
general,  expresses  the  views  of  the  United  States,  subject  to  a  few  specific  amend- 
ments suggested  in  the  volume  of  international  law  discussions  of  the  Naval  War 
College  of  the  year  1903,  pages  91  to  97.  The  order  putting  this  code  into  force 
was  revoked  by  the  Navy  Department  in  1904,  not  because  of  any  change  of 
views  as  to  the  rules  which  it  contained,  but  because  many  of  those  rules,  being 
imposed  upon  the  forces  of  the  United  States  by  the  order,  would  have  put  our 
naval  forces  at  a  disadvantage  as  against  the  forces  of  other  Powers,  upon  whom 
the  rules  were  not  binding.  The  whole  discussion  of  these  rules  contained  in  the 
volume  to  Which  I  have  referred  is  commended  to  your  careful  study. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  75 

You  will  urge  upon  the  Peace  Conference  the  formulation  of  international 
rules  for  war  at  sea  and  will  offer  the  Naval  War  Code  of  1900,  with  the  sug- 
gested changes  and  such  further  changes  as  may  be  made  necessary  by  other 
agreements  reached  at  the  Conference,  as  a  tentative  formulation  of  the  rules 
which  should  be  considered. 

8.  The  clause  of  the  program  relating  to  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals 
is  of  very  great  importance  and  in  itself  would  furnish  matter  for  useful  discus- 
sion sufficient  to  occupy  the  time  and  justify  the  labors  of  the  Conference. 

The  various  subjects  which  the  Conference  may  be  called  upon  to  consider 
are  likely  to  bring  out  proposals  which  should  be  considered  in  their  relation  to 
each  other,  as  standing  in  the  following  order  of  substantial  importance : 

(1)  Provisions  tending  to  prevent  disagreements  between  nations. 

(2)  Provisions  tending  to  dispose  of  disagreements  without  war. 

(3)  Provisions  tending  to  preserve  the  rights  and  interests  of  neutrals. 

(4)  Provisions  tending  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  war  to  belligerents. 

The  relative  importance  of  these  classes  of  provisions  should  always  be  kept 
in  mind.  No  rules  should  be  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  mitigating  the  evils  of 
war  to  belligerents  which  will  tend  strongly  to  destroy  the  right  of  neutrals,  and 
no  rules  should  be  adopted  regarding  the  rights  of  neutrals  which  will  tend 
strongly  to  bring  about  war.  It  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  not  only  the 
rights  but  the  duties  of  neutrals  shall  be  most  clearly  and  distinctly  defined  and 
understood,  not  only  because  the  evils  which  belligerent  nations  bring  upon  them- 
selves ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  spread  to  their  peaceful  neighbors  and  inflict 
unnecessary  injury  upon  the  rest  of  mankind,  but  because  misunderstandings 
regarding  the  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  constantly  tend  to  involve  them  in 
controversy  with  one  or  the  other  belligerent. 

For  both  of  these  reasons,  special  consideration  should  be  given  to  an  agree- 
ment upon  what  shall  be  deemed  to  constitute  contraband  of  war.  There  has  been 
a  recent  tendency  to  extend  widely  the  list  of  articles  to  be  treated  as  contraband ; 
and  it  is  probable  that  if  the  belligerents  themselves  are  to  determine  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  war  what  shall  be  contraband,  this  tendency  will  continue  until  the 
list  of  contraband  is  made  to  include  a  large  proportion  of  all  the  articles  which  are 
the  subject  of  commerce,  upon  the  ground  that  they  will  be  useful  to  the  enemy. 
When  this  result  is  reached,  especially  if  the  doctrine  of  continuous  voyages  is 
applied  at  the  same  time,  the  doctrine  that  free  ships  make  free  goods  and  the 
doctrine  that  blockades  in  order  to  be  binding  must  be  effective,  as  well  as  any 
rule  giving  immunity  to  the  property  of  belligerents  at  sea,  will  be  deprived  of  a 
large  part  of  their  effect,  and  we  shall  find  ourselves  going  backward  instead  of 
forward  in  the  effort  to  prevent  every  war  from  becoming  universally  disastrous. 
The  exception  of  contraband  of  war  in  the  Declaration  of  Paris  will  be  so  ex- 
panded as  to  very  largely  destroy  the  effect  of  the  declaration.  On  the  other  hand, 
resistance  to  this  tendency  toward  the  expansion  of  the  list  of  contraband  ought 


76  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

not  to  be  left  to  the  neutrals  affected  by  it  at  the  very  moment  when  war  exists, 
because  that  is  the  process  by  which  neutrals  become  themselves  involved  in  war. 
You  should  do  all  in  your  power  to  bring  about  an  agreement  upon  what  is  to 
constitute  contraband;  and  it  is  very  desirable  that  the  list  should  be  limited  as 
narrowly  as  possible. 

With  these  instructions  there  will  be  furnished  to  you  copies  of  the  diplo- 
matic correspondence  relating  to  the  conference,  the  instructions  to  the  delegates 
to  the  First  Conference  which  are  in  all  respects  reaffirmed  and  their  report,  the 
international  law  discussions  of  the  Naval  War  College  of  1903,  the  report  of 
the  American  delegates  to  the  Conference  of  the  American  Republics  at  Rio  de 
Janeiro  in  1906,  and  the  report  of  the  American  delegates  to  the  Geneva  Confer- 
ence of  1906  for  the  revision  of  the  Red  Cross  Convention  of  1864. 

Following  the  precedent  established  by  the  commission  to  the  First  Conference, 
all  your  reports  and  communications  to  this  Government  will  be  made  to  the 
Department  of  State  for  proper  consideration  and  eventual  preservation  in  the 
archives.  The  record  of  your  commission  will  be  kept  by  your  secretary,  Mr. 
Chandler  Hale.  Should  you  be  in  doubt  at  any  time  regarding  the  meaning  or 
effect  of  these  instructions,  or  should  you  consider  at  any  time  that  there  is  oc- 
casion for  special  instructions,  you  will  communicate  freely  with  the  Department 
of  State  by  telegraph.  It  is  the  President's  earnest  wish  that  you  may  contribute 
materially  to  the  effective  work  of  the  Conference  and  that  its  deliberations  may 
result  in  making  international  justice  more  certain  and  international  peace  more 
secure. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  your  obedient  servant, 

Elihu  Root. 


REPORT   TO   THE   SECRETARY   OF   STATE   OF   THE   DELEGATES    OF   THE 
UNITED  STATES  TO  THE  SECOND  HAGUE  CONFERENCEi 

Hon.  Elihu  Root, 

Secretary  of  State. 
Sir:  Pursuant  to  a  request  of  the  Interparliamentary  Union,  held  at  St. 
Louis  in  1904,  that  a  future  peace  conference  be  held  and  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  invite  all  nations  to  send  representatives  to  such  a  conference, 
the  late  Secretary  of  State,  at  the  direction  of  the  President,  instructed,  on  October 
21,  1904,  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  accredited  to  each  of  the  signa- 
tories to  the  acts  of  the  Hague  Conference  of  1899  to  present  overtures  for  a 


^Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  1907,  pt.  2,  p.  1144. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  n 

second  conference  to  the  ministers  for  foreign  affairs  of  the  respective  countries. 

The  replies  received  to  this  circular  instruction  of  October  31,  1904,  indi- 
cated that  the  proposition  for  the  calling  of  a  second  conference  met  with  general 
favor.  At  a  later  period  it  was  intimated  by  Russia  that  the  initiator  of  the  First 
Conference  was,  owing  to  the  restoration  of  peace  in  the  Orient,  disposed  to 
undertake  the  calling  of  a  new  conference  to  continue  as  well  as  to  supplement 
the  work  of  the  first.  The  offer  of  the  Czar  to  take  steps  requisite  to  convene  a 
second  international  peace  conference  was  gladly  welcomed  by  the  President, 
and  the  Final  Act  of  the  Conference  only  recites  in  its  preamble  the  invitation  of 
the  President. 

The  Russian  Government  thus  assumed  the  calling  of  the  Conference,  and 
on  April  12,  1906,  submitted  the  following  program,  which  was  acceptable  to  the 
Powers  generally  and  which  served  as  the  basis  of  the  work  of  the  Conference : 

1.  Improvements  to  be  made  in  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  rela- 
tive to  the  peaceful  settlement  of  international  disputes  as  regards  the  court 
of  arbitration  and  the  international  commissions  of  inquiry. 

2.  Additions  to  be  made  to  the  provisions  of  the  Convention  of  1899 
relative  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  war  on  land — among  others,  those  con- 
cerning the  opening  of  hostilities,  the  rights  of  neutrals  on  land,  etc.  Declar- 
ations of  1899.    One  of  these  having  expired,  question  of  its  being  revived. 

3.  Framing  of  a  convention  relative  to  the  laws  and  customs  of  mari- 
time warfare,  concerning — 

The  special  operations  of  maritime  warfare,  such  as  the  bombardment  of 
ports,  cities,  and  villages  by  a  naval  force ;  the  laying  of  torpedoes,  etc. 

The  transformation  of  merchant  vessels  into  war-ships. 

The  private  property  of  belligerents  at  sea. 

The  length  of  time  to  be  granted  to  merchant  ships  for  their  departure 
from  ports  of  neutrals  or  of  the  enemy  after  the  opening  of  hostilities. 

The  rights  and  duties  of  neutrals  at  sea,  among  others  the  questions  of 
contraband,  the  rules  applicable  to  belligerent  vessels  in  neutral  ports;  de- 
struction, in  cases  of  vis  major,  of  neutral  merchant  vessels  captured  as 
prizes. 

In  the  said  convention  to  be  drafted  there  would  be  introduced  the  pro- 
visions relative  to  war  on  land  that  would  be  also  applicable  to  maritime 
warfare. 

4.  Additions  to  be  made  to  the  Convention  of  1899  for  the  adaptation 
to  maritime  warfare  of  the  principles  of  the  Geneva  Convention  of  1864. 

The  United  States,  however,  reserved  the  right  to  bring  to  discussion  two 
matters  of  great  importance  not  included  in  the  program,  namely,  the  reduction  or 
limitation  of  armaments  and  restrictions  or  limitations  upon  the  use  of  force  for 
the  collection  of  ordinary  public  debts  arising  out  of  contracts. 

It  was  finally  decided  that  the  Conference  should  meet  at  The  Hague  on  the 
15th  day  of  June,  1907,  and  thus  the  Conference,  proposed  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  and  convoked  by  Her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  the  Netherlands 


RoJaf.i  to 

BUREAU  OF  ik?»..at:onu  WLKmm 

University  ef  Caifforuia 


78  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

upon  the  invitation  of  the  Emperor  of  All  the  Russias,  assumed  definite  shape  and 
form. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  the  First  Peace  Conference,  although  international, 
was  not  universal,  for  only  a  fraction  of  the  Powers  recognizing  and  applying 
international  law  in  their  mutual  relations  were  invited  to  The  Hague.  The  fact 
that  the  uninvited  might  adhere  to  the  conventions  was  foreseen  by  the  Confer- 
ence itself,  and  the  conventions  concerning  the  laws  and  customs  of  land  war- 
fare and  the  adaptation  to  maritime  warfare  of  the  principles  of  the  Geneva  Con- 
vention of  the  22d  of  August,  1864,  provided  that  non-signatory  Powers  by  ad- 
hering became  admitted  to  the  privileges  as  well  as  bound  by  the  liabilities  of  the 
various  conventions.  The  Convention  for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of  interna- 
tional difficulties  (Art.  60)  suggested  eventual  adherence  of  such  countries,  but 
made  this  conditioned  upon  an  understanding  to  be  reached  by  the  contracting 
Powers. 

In  the  circulars  of  October  21  and  December  16,  1904,  it  was  suggested  as 
desirable  to  consider  and  adopt  a  procedure  by  which  States  non-signatory  to  the 
original  acts  of  the  Hague  Conference  may  become  adhering  parties.  This  sug- 
gestion was  taken  note  of  by  the  Russian  Government  and  invitations  were  issued 
to  forty-seven  countries,  in  response  to  which  the  representatives  of  forty-four 
nations  assembled  at  The  Hague  and  took  part  in  the  Conference.  No  opposition 
was  made  to  the  admission  of  the  non-signatory  States  to  the  benefits  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1899  for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of  international  difficulties,  and  on 
the  14th  day  of  June,  1907,  the  signatories  of  the  First  Conference  formally  con- 
sented under  their  hands  and  seals  to  the  adhesion  of  the  non-signatory  States 
invited  to  the  Second  Conference. 

The  delegation  of  the  United  States  to  the  Conference  was  composed  of  the 
following  members : 

Commissioners  plenipotentiary  with  the  rank  of  ambassador  extraordinary: 
Joseph  H.  Choate,  of  New  York;  Horace  Porter,  of  New  York;  Uriah  M.  Rose, 
of  Arkansas. 

Commissioner  plenipotentiary:  David  Jayne  Hill,  of  New  York,  envoy  ex- 
traordinary and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  to  the  Netherlands. 

Commissioners  plenipotentiary  with  rank  of  minister  plenipotentiary:  Brig. 
Gen.  George  B.  Davis,  Judge-Advocate-General,  U.  S.  Army;  Rear-Admiral 
Charles  S.  Sperry,  U.  S.  Navy ;  William  I.  Buchanan,  of  New  York. 

Technical  delegate  and  expert  in  international  law :  James  Brown  Scott,  of 
California. 

Technical  delegate  and  expert  attache  to  the  commission:  Charles  Henry 
Butler,  of  New  York.. 

Secretary  to  the  commission:   Chandler  Hale,  of  Maine. 

Assistant  secretaries  to  the  commission :  A.  Bailly-Blanchard,  of  Louisiana : 
William  M.  Malloy,  of  Illinois. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  79 

The  Dutch  Government  set  aside  for  the  use  of  the  Conference  the  Binnen- 
hof,  the  seat  of  the  States-General,  and  on  the  15th  day  of  June,  1907,  at  3  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon,  the  Conference  was  opened  by  his  Excellency  the  Dutch  Minister 
for  Foreign  Affairs  in  the  presence  of  delegates  representing  forty-four  nations. 
In  the  course  of  his  remarks  his  Excellency  offered  "a  tribute  of  gratitude  to  the 
eminent  statesman  who  controls  the  destinies  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
President  Roosevelt  has  greatly  contributed  to  harvest  the  grain  sown  by  the 
august  initiator  of  the  solemn  international  Conferences  assembled  to  discuss  and 
to  render  more  exact  the  rules  of  international  law  which,  as  the  States  are  the 
first  to  recognize,  should  control  their  relations.'* 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  address  of  welcome  his  Excellency  suggested  as 
president  of  the  Conference  his  Excellency  M.  Nelidow,  first  delegate  of  Russia, 
and,  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  assembly,  M.  Nelidow  accepted  the  presi- 
dency and  delivered  an  address,  partly  personal,  in  which,  in  addition  to  thanking 
the  conference  for  the  honor  of  the  presidency,  he-  called  attention  to  the  work 
of  the  First  Conference  and  outlined  in  a  general  way  the  underlying  purpose  of 
the  Second  Conference  and  the  hopes  of  the  delegates  assembled.  At  the  termi- 
nation of  his  address  he  proposed  the  personnel  of  the  secretary-general's  office. 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Conference,  on  the  19th  day  of  June,  the  president 
proposed  that  the  Conference  follow  the  procedure  of  the  First  Conference,  adapt- 
ing it,  however,  to  the  new  conditions;  for,  as  the  Conference  was  so  large,  it 
seemed  advisable  to  draw  up  a  series  of  rules  and  regulations  to  facilitate  the 
conduct  of  business.  The  president  thereupon  proposed  the  following  twelve 
articles,  which  were  unanimously  adopted,  with  the  exception  of  the  third  para- 
graph of  Article  8,  which  was  suppressed : 

Article  1.  The  Second  Peace  Conference  is  composed  of  all  the  pleni- 
potentiaries and  technical  delegates  of  the  Powers  which  have  signed  or 
adhered  to  the  conventions  and  acts  signed  at  the  First  Peace  Conference  of 
1899. 

Art.  2.  After  organizing  its  bureau,  the  Conference  shall  appoint  com- 
missions to  study  the  questions  comprised  within  its  program. 

The  plenipotentiaries  of  the  Powers  are  free  to  register  on  the  lists  of 
these  commissions  according  to  their  own  convenience  and  to  appoint  techni- 
cal delegates  to  take  part  therein. 

Art.  3.  The  Conference  shall  appoint  the  president  and  vice-presidents 
of  each  commission.  The  commissions  shall  appoint  their  secretaries  and 
their  reporter. 

Art.  4.  Each  commission  shall  have  the  power  to  divide  itself  into  sub- 
cornmissions,  which  shall  organize  their  own  bureau. 

Art.  5.  An  editing  committee  for  the  purpose  of  coordinating  the  acts 
adopted  by  the  Conference  and  preparing  them  in  their  final  form  shall  also 
be  appointed  by  the  Conference  at  the  beginning  of  its  labors. 

Art.  6.  The  members  of  the  delegations  are  all  authorized  to  take  part 
in  the  deliberations  at  the  plenary  sessions  of  the  Conference  as  well  as  in 


80  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

the  commissions  of  which  they  form  part.    The  members  of  one  and  the  same 
delegation  may  mutually  replace  one  another. 

Art.  7.  The  members  of  the  Conference  attending  the  meetings  of  the 
commissions  of  which  they  are  not  members  shall  not  be  entitled  to  take 
part  in  the  deliberations  without  being  specially  authorized  for  this  purpose 
by  the  presidents  of  the  commissions. 
,         Art.  8.  When  a  vote  is  taken  each  delegation  shall  have  only  one  vote. 

The  vote  shall  be  taken  by  roll-call,  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  the 
Powers  represented. 

[The  delegation  of  one  Power  may  have  itself  represented  by  the  dele- 
gation of  another  Power.] 

Art.  9.  Every  proposed  resolution  or  desire  to  be  discussed  by  the 
Conference  must,  as  a'  general  rule,  be  delivered  in  writing  to  the  president, 
and  be  printed  and  distributed  before  being  taken  up  for  discussion. 

Art.  10.  The  public  may  be  admitted  to  the  plenary  sessions  of  the 
Conference.  Tickets  shall  be  distributed  for  this  purpose  by  the  secretary 
general  with  the  authorization  of  the  president. 

The  bureau  may  at  any  time  decide  that  certain  sessions  shall  not  be 
public. 

Art.  11.  The  minutes  of  the  plenary  sessions  of  the  Conference  and  of 
the  commissions  shall  give  a  succinct  resume  of  the  deliberations. 

A  proof  copy  of  them  shall  be  opportunely  delivered  to  the  members  of 
the  Conference  and  they  shall  not  be  read  at  the  beginning  of  the  sessions. 

Each  delegate  shall  have  a  right  to  request  the  insertion  in  full  of  his 
official  declarations  according  to  the  text  delivered  by  him  to  the  secretary, 
and  to  make  observations  regarding  the  minutes. 

The  reports  of  the  commissions  and  subcommissions  shall  be  printed  and 
distributed  before  being  taken  up  for  discussion. 

Art.  12.  The  French  language  is  recognized  as  the  official  language  of 
the  deliberations  and  of  the  acts  of  the  Conference. 

The  secretary  general  shall,  with  the  consent  of  the  speaker  himself,  see 
that  speeches  delivered  in  any  other  language  are  summarized  orally  in 
French. 

The  president  stated  that  the  program  for  the  work  of  the  Conference  was 
so  elaborate  that  a  division  of  the  Conference  into  four  commissions  would  be 
advisable ;  that  in  so  doing  the  precedent  of  1899  would  be  followed,  for  the  First 
Conference  apportioned  the  subjects  enumerated  in  the  program  among  three 
commissions.    The  following  dispositions  were  thereupon  proposed  and  agreed  to : 

FIRST  COMMISSION 

Arbitration. 

International  commissions  of  inquiry  and  questions  connected  therewith. 

SECOND  COMMISSION 

Improvements  in  the  system  of  the  laws  and  customs  of  land  warfare. 

Opening  of  hostilities. 

Declarations  of  1899  relating  thereto. 

Rights  and  obligations  of  neutrals  on  land. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  81 


THIRD  COMMISSION 


Bombardment  of  ports,  cities,  and  villages  by  a  naval  force. 

Laying  of  torpedoes,  etc. 

The  rules  to  which  the  vessels  of  belligerents  in  neutral  ports  would  be 
subjected. 

Additions  to  be  made  to  the  Convention  of  1899  in  order  to  adapt  to 
maritime  warfare  the  principles  of  the  Geneva  Convention  of  1864,  revised 
in  1906. 

FOURTH  COMMISSION 

Transformation  of  merchant  vessels  into  war  vessels. 

Private  property  at  sea. 

Delay  allowed  for  the  departure  of  enemy  merchant  vessels  in  enemy 
ports. 

Contraband  of  war.   Blockades. 

Destruction  of  neutral  prizes  by  force  majeure. 

Provisions  regarding  land  warfare  which  would  also  be  applicable  to 
naval  warfare. 

The  president  thereupon  proposed  as  presidents  or  chairmen  of  the  various 
-committees  the  following  delegates : 

First  commission:   M.  Leon  Bourgeois. 

Second  commission:   M.  Beemaert;  assistant  president,  M.  T.  M.  C.  Asser. 

Third  commission :  Count  Tornielli. 

Fourth  commission :  M.  de  Martens. 

At  the  same  time  the  president  designated  as  honorary  presidents  of  the  third 
and  second  commissions  Messrs.  Joseph  H.  Choate  and  Horace  Porter,  and  as  a 
member  of  the  correspondence  committee  Hon.  Uriah  M.  Rose.  The  president 
recommended  that  the  deliberations  be  kept  secret,  or,  at  least,  that  they  be  not 
communicated  by  members  to  the  press.  The  recommendation  was  unanimously 
adopted,  but  was  not  universally  adhered  to  by  the  delegates. 

The  first,  second,  and  third  commissions  were  subsequently  divided  into  sub- 
commissions  in  order  to  reduce  the  numbers  and  to  facilitate  the  work,  and  at 
various  times  committees  of  examination  were  appointed  by  each  of  the  commis- 
sions in  order  still  further  to  reduce  membership  and  to  present  in  acceptable 
form  projects  accepted  in  principle  but  not  in  detail  by  the  various  commissions. 
Finally,  in  order  to  correct  the  language  and  to  assign  the  various  projects  already 
approved  to  their  proper  place  in  the  Final  Act,  a  large  editing  committee  (comite 
de  redaction)  was  appointed  at  a  meeting  of  the  Conference  and  a  sub-committee 
was  appointed,  consisting  of  eight  members,  to  do  the  work  of  the  large  commit- 
tee and  report  to  it.  It  may  be  said  that  the  American  delegation  was  represented 
on  almost  all  of  these  verious  committees  and  subcommittees. 

The  actual  work  of  the  Conference  was,  therefore,  done  in  commission  and 
committee.  The  results,  so  far  as  the  several  commissions  desired,  were  reported 
to  the  Conference  sitting  in  plenary  session  for  approval,  and,  after  approval,  sub- 


82  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLltY 

mitted  to  the  small  subediting  committee  for  final  revision,  which,  however,  af- 
fected form,  not  substance.  The  results  thus  reached  were  included  in  the  Final 
Act  and  signed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  1907,  upon 
which  date  the  Conference  adjourned. 

The  positive  results  of  the  Conference  might  be  set  forth,  with  perhaps  equal 
propriety,  in  either  one  of  two  ways :  First,  by  discussing  the  work  of  each  com- 
mission and  the  results  accomplished  by  each,  or,  secondly,  by  enumerating  and 
describing  the  results  in  the  order  in  which  they  appear,  arranged  by  the  Confer- 
ence itself,  in  the  Final  Act.  The  first  method  would  have  the  advantage  of  show- 
ing the  work  of  each  commission  as  a 'whole  from  the  presentation  of  the  various 
projects  until  they  took  final  shape  in  the  commission  and  were  approved  by  the 
Conference  in  plenary  session.  As,  however,  important  projects  were  considered 
by  the  commission,  but  were  not  voted  upon  by  the  Conference,  or,  if  voted  in 
a  form  so  modified  as  to  appear  almost  in  the  nature  of  original  propositions,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  various  conventions  and  measures  adopted  are  arranged  in  the 
Final  Act  without  specific  reference  to  the  commissions,  it  seems  advisable  to 
follow  the  order  of  the  Final  Act,  so  that  each  measure  may  occupy  the  place 
in  the  report  which  was  assigned  to  it  by  the  conference  itself.  This  arrangement 
will  bring  into  prominence  the  result  rather  than  the  means  by  which  the  result 
was  reached,  and  will  prevent  in  no  slight  measure  repetition  and  duplication. 

Following  then  the  order  of  the  Final  Act,  the  various  conventions,  declara- 
tions, resolutions,  and  recommendations  are  prefaced  by  an  apt  paragraph  setting 
forth  the  spirit  which  animated  the  conference: 

In  a  series  of  reunions,  held  from  June  15  to  October  18,  1907,  in  which 
the  delegates  aforesaid  have  been  constantly  animated  by  the  desire  to  realize 
in  the  largest  measure  possible  the  generous  views  of  the  august  initiator 
of  the  Conference  and  the  intentions  of  their  Governments,  the  conference 
adopted,  to  be  submitted  to  the  signatures  of  the  plenipotentiaries,  the  text 
of  the  conventions  and  of  the  declaration  hereinafter  enumerated  and  an- 
nexed to  the  present  act. 

The  final  act  then  enumerates  fourteen  subjects,  thirteen  of  which  are  con- 
ventions and  one  is  a  declaration.    Of  each  of  these  in  turn. 

I. — CONVENTION  FOR  TH^  PEACEFUL  ADJUSTMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL 

DIFFERENCES 

This  convention  is,  both  in  conception  and  execution,  the  work  of  the  First 
Peace  Conference,  of  1899,  but  the  eight  years  which  have  elapsed  since  its  adop- 
tion suggested  many  improvements  and  modifications  and  not  a  few  additions. 
The  extent  of  the  changes  will  be  evident  from  the  mere  statement  that  while 
the  convention  of  1899  contained  sixty-one  articles,  the  revision  of  1907  contains 
ninety-seven  articles.    But  these  figures  throw  no  light  upon  the  nature  and  im- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  83 

portance  of  the- changes.  The  structure  of  1899,  however,  practically  remains 
intact,  the  chief  addition  being  the  provision  for  summary  procedure  proposed  by 
the  French  delegation  and  accepted  by  the  conference.  (Title  IV,  Chapter  IV, 
arts.  86-90.)  All  important  changes  which  tended  either  to  enlarge  the  scope 
of  the  convention  or  to  facilitate  its  application,  thereby  rendering  it  more  useful, 
will  be  discussed  in  detail  in  the  order  of  the  convention. 

Articles  2  to  8  of  Title  II  of  the  revised  convention  deal  with  good  offices  and 
mediation,  and  in  this  title  there  is  only  one  change  of  importance,  namely,  the 
insertion  of  the  word  "desirable"  in  Article  3,  so  that  the  extension  of  good  offices 
by  Powers  strangers  tO'  the  conflict  is  considered  not  merely  useful,  as  in  the 
convention  of  1899,  but  desirable,  as  revised  by  the  conference  of  1907.  The 
change  is  perhaps  shght,  but  the  Powers  might  well  consider  a  thing  useful  and 
yet  consider  it  undesirable.  It  may  well  be  that  the  word  "desirable"  is  a  step 
toward  moral  duty  and  that  in  time  it  may  give  rise  to  legal  obligation.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  insertion  of  the  word  "desirable"  in  Article  9,  making 
the  recourse  to  the  international  commission  of  inquiry  desirable  as  well  as  useful. 
Both  additions  were  proposed  by  the  American  delegation  and  accepted  unani- 
mously by  the  conference.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  advisable  to  note  that  a 
like  change  has  been  made  upon  the  proposal  of  Austria-Hungary  in  the  revision 
of  Article  16  of  the  original  convention,  so  that  the  arbitration  of  judicial  ques- 
tions and  questions  of  interpretation  and  application  of  international  conventions 
is  declared  to  be  not  only  efficacious  and  equitable  but  desirable.    (Art.  38.) 

Title  III  in  both  the  original  and  revised  conventions  deals  with  international 
commissions  of  inquiry ;  but  while  the  convention  of  1899  contained  but  six  arti- 
cles (9-14,  inclusive),  the  revision  contains  twenty-eight.  A  little  reflection 
shows  the  reason  for  the  great  care  and  consideration  bestowed  upon  the  commis- 
sion of  inquiry  by  the  recent  conference.  In  1899;  an  institution  was  created 
which  was  hoped  would  be  serviceable.  In  1907  the  creation  was  revised  and 
amplified  in  the  light  of  practical  experience,  for  the  institution,  theoretically 
commendable,  had  justified  its  existence  at  a  very  critical  moment,  namely,  by  the 
peaceful  settlement  of  the  Dogger  Bank  incident  (1904).  The  provisions  of  1899 
were  meager  and  insufficient  to  meet  the  needs  of  a  practical  inquiry.  In  1907 
the  procedure  actually  adopted  by  the  commission  of  inquiry  was  presented  to  the 
conference,  studied,  considered,  and  made  the  basis  of  the  present  rules  and  regu- 
lations. The  nature  of  the  commission  of  inquiry  is,  however,  unchanged.  It 
was  and  is  an  international  commission  charged  with  the  duty  of  ascertaining 
the  facts  in  an  international  dispute,  and  its  duty  is  performed  when  the  facts 
in  controversy  are  found.  It  does  not  render  a  judgment,  nor  does  it  apply  to 
the  facts  found  a  principle  of  law,  for  it  is  not  a  court.    (Art.  35.) 

The  seat  of  the  commission  is  The  Hague,  but  the  parties  may  provide  in 
the  agreement  of  submission  that  the  commission  meet  elsewhere  (Art.  11),  or  the 
commission  may,  after  its  formation  and  during  its  session  at  The  Hague,  trans- 


84  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

port  itself,  with  the  consent  of  the  parties,  to  such  place  or  places  as  may  seem 
appropriate  to  ascertain  the  facts  in  controversy.  The  parties  litigant  not  only 
bind  themselves  to  furnish  to  the  commission  of  inquiry,  in  the  largest  measure 
possible,  the  means  and  facilities  necessary  for  the  establishment  of  the  facts, 
but  the  contracting  Powers  agree  to  furnish  information  in  accordance  with  their 
municipal  legislation  unless  such  information  would  injure  their  sovereignty  or 
security. 

As  previously  said,  the  First  Conference  created  the  commission  of  inquiry, 
but  left  it  to  the  parties  to  the  controversy  to  fix  the  procedure,  specifying  only 
that  upon  the  inquiry  both  sides  be  heard.  If  the  procedure  were  not  established 
in  advance  by  the  litigating  Powers,  it  was  then  to  be  devised  by  the  commission. 
(Art.  10.)  The  disadvantages  of  this  provision  are  apparent.  The  parties,  in- 
flamed by  passion  or  ill  at  ease,  were,  upon  the  spur  of  the  moment,  to  devise  an 
elaborate  code  of  procedure,  a  task  which  might  well  be  as  difficult  as  to  ascertain 
the  facts  in  dispute.  In  the  next  place,  if  they  did  not  do  so,  the  commission 
was  to  fix  the  procedure.  That  this  task  might  well  be  entrusted  to  the  commis- 
sion is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  commission  of  1904  did  in  fact  devise  a  satis- 
factory code.  But  the  procedure  thus  framed  could  not  be  known  to  the  litigat- 
ing countries  in  advance,  and  the  agents  and  counsel  were  thus  deprived  of  the 
opportunity  of  familiarizing  themselves  with  it  before  entering  upon  the  case. 

The  revision  of  1907,  therefore,  aims  to  obviate  this  difficulty  by  establishing 
a  careful  code  of  procedure  based  upon  the  experience  of  the  commission  of  1904. 
It  is  practical  in  its  nature,  for  it  is  based  upon  actual  practice.  It  provides  in 
advance  the  procedure  of  the  commission,  thus  relieving  the  parties  from  this 
serious  task  and  leaving  the  commission  free  to  begin  its  labors  without  the  ne- 
cessity of  drawing  up  an  elaborate  system  of  rules  and  regulations  for  the  con- 
duct of  business  before  it.  The  procedure,  however,  is  not  obligatory,  for  the 
parties  may,  if  they  choose,  specify  in  the  submission  the  procedure  to  be  fol- 
lowed (Art.  10),  but  the  Conference  recommended  a  code  of  procedure  which 
was  to  be  applied  if  the  parties  did  not  adopt  other  rules  (Art.  17).  The  revision 
of  the  title  devoted  to  international  commissions  of  inquiry  received  the  unani- 
mous approval  of  the  Conference. 

The  selection  of  commissioners  is,  and  must  always  be,  a  matter  of  delicacy 
and  difficulty.  Facts  as  seen  by  one  person  differ  from  those  as  seen  by  another, 
and  national  interest  tends  unconsciously  to  warp  the  judgment  of  one  whose 
country  is  involved  in  the  controversy.  But  the  value  of  the  findings  of  fact  de- 
pends upon  their  accuracy.  If  possible,  they  should  be  found  by  a  tribunal  from 
which  nationals  are  excluded.  The  world  does  not  seem  to  be  ready  for  this 
ideal  solution,  but  the  conference  made  a  serious  step  toward  it  by  associating 
strangers  to  the  controversy  with  the  commissioners.  Article  12  of  the  revised 
Convention  for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of  international  differences  provides  that 
the  commissioners  of  inquiry,  in  the  absence  of  a  special  agreement  to  the  con- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  85 

trary,  shall  be  chosen  in  accordance  with  Articles  45  and  57  of  the  revised  Con- 
vention.   These  articles  read  as  follows : 

Art.  45.  When  the  contracting  Powers  desire  to  have  recourse  to  the 
Permanent  Court  for  the  settlement  of  a  difference  that  has  arisen  between 
them,  the  arbitrators  called  upon  to  form  the  competent  tribunal  to  decide 
this  difference  must  be  chosen  from  the  general  list  of  members  of  the  Court. 

Failing  the  agreement  of  the  parties  on  the  composition  of  the  arbitration 
tribunal,  the  following  course  shall  be  pursued: 

Each  party  appoints  two  arbitrators,  of  whom'  only  one  shall  be  its  citi- 
zen or  subject,  or  chosen  from  among  those  who  have  been  designated  by 
•  it  as  members  of  the  Permanent  •  Court.  These  arbitrators  together  choose 
an  umpire. 

If  the  votes  are  equal,  the  choice  of  the  umpire  is  entrusted  to  a  third 
Power,  selected  by  the  parties  by  common  accord. 

If  an  agreement  is  not  arrived  at  on  this  subject,  each  party  selects  a 
different  Power,  and  the  choice  of  the  umpire  is  made  in  concert  by  the 
Powers  thus  selected. 

If  these  two  Powers  have  been  unable  to  agree  within  a  period  of  two 
months,  each  of  them  presents  two  candidates  taken  from  the  list  of  the 
members  of  the  Permanent  Court,  outside  of  the  members  designated  by  the 
parties  and  not  being  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  either  of  them.  It  shall  be 
determined  by  lot  which  of  the  candidates  thus  presented  shall  be  the  um- 
pire. 

Art.  57.  The  umpire  is  by  right  president  of  the  tribunal. 

When  the  tribunal  does  not  include  an  umpire,  it  appoints  its  own  presi- 
dent. 

A  consideration  of  Article  45  discloses  that  at  least  one  of  the  commissioners 
or  arbitrators  shall  be  a  stranger  to  the  controversy.  Article  32  of  the  conven- 
tion of  1899  left  both  commissioners  or  arbitrators  to  the  free  choice  of  the 
selecting  Power.  In  the  next  place,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  revised  convention 
endeavors  to  secure  the  composition  of  the  commission  or  court  by  providing 
ample  machinery  for  the  selection  of  the  umpire.  In  the  convention  of  1899,  in 
case  of  an  equality  of  votes,  the  selection  of  the  umpire  was  confided  to  a  third 
Power  designated  by  the  common  accord  of  the  parties  to  the  controversy.  If, 
however,  the  parties  failed  to  agree  upon  the  third  Power  in  question,  each  liti- 
gant chose  a  neutral  Power,  and  these  neutral  Powers  selected  the  umpire.  It 
might  well  happen,  however,  that  the  agents  would  be  as  far  from  agreement 
as  the  principals.  The  revision  therefore  provided  that  in  case  of  disagreement 
each  litigant  Power  should  select  two  members  from  the  list  of  the  Permanent 
Court,  who  should  neither  be  citizens  nor  owe  their  appointment  to  a  designat- 
ing Power ;  that  thereupon  the  umpire  should  be  chosen  by  lot  from  the  members 
of  the  court  so  designated. 

It  will  therefore  be  seen  that  the  commission  or  court  will  consist  of  a  body 
of  five,  at  least  two  of  whose  members  must  be  strangers  to  the  controversy. 


86  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

The  umpire  selected  by  their  common  accord  may  be  indifferent.  If  the  commis- 
sioners or  arbitrators  fail  to  agree  and  make  use  of  the  machinery  provided,  it 
follows  that  the  umpire  selected  is  a  stranger  to  the  controversy,  and  of  the 
commission  or  court  consisting  of  five  competent  persons  a  majority,  that  is  to 
say,  three,  would  be  persons  having  no  national  interest  or  bias  in  the  controversy. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  revised  convention  offers  a  guaranty  for  the 
finding  of  the  facts  as  impartially  as  can  be  the  case  when  national  representatives 
are  members  of  a  small  commission  or  court.  As  these  provisions  apply  to  the 
selection  of  arbiters  for  the  constitution  of  the  court  at  The  Hague,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  refer  to  them  again  in  detail. 

Article  48  of  the  revision  of  the  convention  of  1899  reads  as  follows : 

The  signatory  Powers  consider  it  their  duty,  if  a  serious  dispute  threatens 
to  break  out  between  two  or  more  of  them,  to  remind  these  latter  that  the 
Permanent  Court  is  open  to  them. 

Consequently,  they  declare  that  the  fact  of  reminding  the  conflicting 
parties  of  the  provisions  of  the  present  Convention,  and  the  advice  given 
to  them,  in  the  highest  interests  of  peace,  to  have  recourse  to  the  Permanent 
Court,  can  only  be  regarded  as  friendly  actions. 

To  these  two  paragraphs  was  added  the  following  provision : 

In  case  of  a  controversy  between  two  Powers,  one  of  them  may  always 
address  to  the  International  Bureau  a  note  containing  its  declaration  that  it 
is  willing  to  submit  the  difference  to  arbitration. 

The  Bureau  shall  immediately  make  the  declaration  known  to  the  other 
Power. 

The  American  delegation  of  1899  made  the  following  reserve  regarding  this 
article,  and  the  American  delegation  of  1907  repeated  the  reserve  in  the  exact 
language  of  1899 : 

Nothing  contained  in  this  Convention  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  require 
^  the  United  States  of  America  to  depart  from  its  traditional  policy  of  not 
entering  upon,  interfering  with,  or  entangling  itself  in  the  political  questions 
or  internal  administration  of  any  foreign  State,  nor  shall  anything  contained 
in  the  said  Convention  be  so  construed  as  to  require  the  relinquishment,  by 
the  United  States  of  America,  of  its  traditional  attitude  toward  purely  Amer- 
ican questions. 

The  changes  regarding  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  commission  of  inquiry,  relate  chiefly  to  procedure.  In  this,  as  in  the 
previous  case,  the  amendments  were  the  result  of  experience  gained  in  the  actual 
trial  of  cases. 

In  the  first  place.  Article  52,  a  revision  of  Article  31,  provides  that  the  agree- 
ment to  arbitrate   (the  compromis)   shall  specify  in  detail  the  period  for  the 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  87 

appointment  of  the  arbitrators,  the  form,  order,  and  periods  within  which  the 
various  documents  necessary  to  the  arbitration  shall  be  communicated  (Art.  63), 
the  amount  of  money  which  each  party  shall  deposit  in  advance  to  cover  expenses. 
In  addition,  the  agreement  to  arbitrate  shall  also,  if  there  is  occasion,  determine 
the  manner  of  appointment  of  the  arbitrators,  all  special  powers  which  the 
tribunal  may  have,  its  seat,  the  language  which  it  will  use  and  those  whose  use 
will  be  authorized  before  it,  and,  in  general,  all  the  conditions  which  the  parties 
have  agreed  upon. 

It  is  often  difficult  to  formulate  the  question  to  be  submitted  to  the  Court, 
and  it  may  well  be  that  the  parties  litigant,  although  willing  to  arbitrate,  may  not 
agree  upon  the  form  of  submission.  In  order,  therefore,  to  aid  the  parties,  not 
to  coerce  them,  the  revised  convention  provides  a  method  by  which  the  Perma- 
nent Court  is  competent  to  draw  up  the  agreement  to  arbitrate  if  the  parties  agree 
to  leave  it  to  this  Court.  It  may  happen  that  one  party  is  willing  and  the  other 
is  not.  The  convention  therefore  provided  that  in  such  a  case  the  court  might, 
upon  the  request  of  one  of  the  parties,  formulate  the  compromis.  The  exact 
language  of  the  article  follows : 

After  an  agreement  through  diplomatic  channels  has  been  attempted  in 
vain  it  is  likewise  competent,  even  if  the  request  is  made  by  only  one  of  the 
parties  in  case — 

(1)  Of  a  difference  comprised  within  a  general  arbitration  treaty  con- 
cluded or  renewed  after  this  convention  goes  into  force,  providing  an  agree- 
ment to  arbitrate  for  each  difference,  and  neither  explicitly  nor  implicitly 
barring  the  competency  of  the  Court  to  draw  up  such  agreement  to  arbitrate. 
However,  recourse  to  the  Court  shall  not  be  had  if  the  other  party  declares 
that  the  difference  does  not  in  its  opinion  belong  to  the  category  of  differ- 
ences to  be  submitted  to  compulsory  arbitration — unless  the  arbitration  treaty 
confers  upon  the  arbitral  tribunal  the  power  to  decide  this  preliminary 
question. 

(2)  Of  a  difference  arising  from  contractual  debts  claimed  by  one  Power 
of  another  Power  as  being  due  to  its  citizens  or  subjects,  and  for  the  solution 
of  which  the  offer  of  arbitration  has  been  accepted.  This  provision  is  not 
applicable  if  the  acceptance  has  been  made  contingent  on  the  condition  that 
the  agreement  to  arbitrate  shall  be  drawn  up  in  another  manner. 

If  the  other  party  consents,  and  the  moral  pressure  will  be  great,  the  special 
agreement  may  be  reached  in  this  manner ;  but  as  the  Court  is  not  permanently 
in  session  and  would  have  to  be  constituted  for  the  express  purpose  of  formulating 
the  agreement,  it  follows  that  the  agreement  must  in  reality  be  the  result  of  the 
consent  of  both  parties,  because  the  Court  can  only  be  constituted  by  the  joint  act 
and  cooperation  of  both  parties  litigant.  It  is  supposed,  however,  that  the 
presence  of  such  a  possibility  may  lead  disputants  to  reach  a  conclusion,  even 
although  they  do  not  care  to  avail  themselves  of  the  machinery  provided. 


88  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

It  should  be  npted  that  the  second  section  of  Article  53  refers  to  the  arbitra- 
tion  of  differences  arising  from  contractual  debts.  As  the  agreement  to  renounce 
the  use  of  force  depends  upon  arbitration,  and  as  arbitration  is  impossible  with- 
out the  preliminary  agreement  of  submission,  it  may  happen  that  a  failure  to 
agree  would  destroy,  in  large  measure,  the  value  of  the  convention.  It  is  hoped 
that  the  provisions  of  this  article  will  enable  the  agreement  to  be  formulated  in 
extreme  cases  and  thus  exclude  even  the  suggestion  of  force. 

The  other  changes  made  in  the  procedure  are  important,  but  are  not  of  a 
nature  to  cause  discussion  or  comment,  because  they  facilitate  but  do  not  other- 
wise  modify  the  proceedings  before  the  Court. 

Chapter  IV  of  the  revised  convention  deals  with  summary  arbitration  pro- 
ceedings. Experience  shows  that  it  is  difficult  to  constitute  the  Permanent  Court,, 
and  that  a  trial  before  it  is  lengthy  as  well  as  costly.  The  Conference,  therefore, 
adopted  the  proposal  of  the  French  delegation  to  institute  a  court  of  summary 
procedure,  consisting  of  three  judges  instead  of  five,  with  a  provision  that  the 
umpire,  in  case  of  disagreement,  be  selected  by  lot  from  members  of  the  perma- 
nent court  strangers  to  the  controversy.  The  proceedings  are  in  writing,  with  the 
right  of  each  litigant  to  require  the  appearance  of  witnesses  and  experts.  It  was 
hoped  that  a  small  court  with  a  summary  procedure  might  lead  nations  to  submit 
cases  of  minor  importance  and  thus  facilitate  recourse  to  arbitration  and  diminish, 
its  expense. 

From  this  brief  survey  of  the  amendments  to  the  Convention  for  the  peaceful 
adjustment  of  international  differences  it  will  be  seen  that  they  are  not  in  them- 
selves fundamental,  that  they  do  not  modify  the  intent  or  purpose  of  the  original 
convention,  but  that  they  render  the  institution  of  1899  more  efficient  in  the  dis- 
charge of  its  duties.  The  American  delegation,  therefore,  assisted  in  the  work 
of  revision  and  signed  the  convention. 

n. — CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  LIMITATION  OF  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  FORCE  IN 
THE  COLLECTION  OF  CONTRACT  DEBTS 

This  convention  is  composed  of  but  two  paragraphs,  and  in  simplest  terms 
provides  for  the  substitution  of  arbitration  for  force  in  the  collection  of  con- 
tractual debts  claimed  of  the  Government  of  one  country  by  the  Government  of 
another  country  to  be  due  to  its  nationals.  The  renunciation  of  the  right  to  use 
force  is  explicit,  but  to  receive  the  full  benefit  of  this  renunciation  the  debtor 
must  in  good  faith  accept  arbitration.  Should  the  parties  be  unable,  or  should  it 
be  difficult,  to  formulate  the  special  agreement  necessary  for  the  submission  of 
the  case,  resort  may  be  had  to  the  Permanent  Court  for  the  establishment  of  the 
special  agreement  (compromis)  in  accordance  with  Article  53  of  the  Convention 
for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of  international  differences. 

Finally,  the  arbitration  shall  determine,  in  the  absence  of  agreement  between 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  89 

the  parties,  the  justice  and  the  amount  of  the  debt,  the  time  and  the  mode  of  pay- 
ment thereof.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  this  convention  of  but  two  articles 
will  prevent  a  recourse  to  force  in  the  future  for  the  collection  of  contract  debts. 
It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  the  argreement  to  arbitrate  is  obligatory  upon 
debtor  as  well  as  creditor  and  that  the  acceptance  of  the  convention  is  a  triumph 
for  the  cause  of  arbitration.  It  is  true  that  the  right  to  use  force  was  only 
renounced  conditioned  upon  an  arbitration  of  the  indebtedness,  but  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  the  debtor  nation  may  henceforth  protect  itself  from  the  danger 
of  force  and  that  the  application  or  non-application  of  force  really  depends  upon 
the  good  faith  of  the  debtor.  This  convention  was  introduced  by  the  American 
delegation  and  adopted  by  the  Conference. 

III. — CONVENTION  REI.ATIVE  TO  THE  OPENING  OF   HOSTlUTlES 

The  convention  is  very  short  and  is  based  upon  the  principle  that  neither 
belligerent  should  be  taken  by  surprise  and  that  the  neutral  shall  not  be  bound 
to  the  performance  of  neutral  duties  until  it  has  received  notification,  even  if  only 
by  telegram,  of  the  outbreak  of  war.     ... 

IV. — CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  I.AWS  AND  CUSTOMS  OF  WAR  ON  I^AND 

The  Conference  of  1899  codified  the  laws  of  warfare  on  land  within  the 
compass  of  sixty  articles,  to  which  was  prefaced  an  introduction  of  a  formal 
nature  consisting  of  five  articles.  The  recent  Conference  revised  the  convention 
of  1899,  modified  it  in  parts,  and  added  various  provisions  in  order  to  render  the 
codification  as  complete  and  thorough,  as  accurate  and  scientific,  as  the  changeable 
nature  of  the  subject  will  permit.  Following  the  arrangement  of  1899,  the  revised 
convention  contains  several  introductory  articles,  one  of  which  will  be  discussed 
later.  The  various  modifications  and  the  additions  of  the  revised  convention  will 
be  briefly  set  forth  in  the  order  of  the  convention.     .     .     . 

V. — CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF  NEUTRAI,  POWERS  AND 

PERSONS  IN  LAND  WARFARE 

This  convention  is  divided  into  five  chapters,  dealing,  respectively,  with  the 
rights  and  duties  of  neutral  Powers  (Arts.  1-10),  prisoners  and  wounded  in 
neutral  territory  (Arts.  11-15),  neutral  persons  (Arts.  16-18),  railroad  material 
(Art.  19),  and,  finally,  dispositions  of  a  formal  nature.     .     .     . 

VI.-— CONVENTION   REGARDING  THE   ENEMY's   SHIPS   OF  COMMERCE  AT  THE  BEGIN- 
NING OF   HOSTIUTIES 

The  uninterrupted  practice  of  belligerent  Powers  since  the  outbreak  of  the 
Crimean  war  has  been  to  allow  enemy  merchant  vessels  in  their  ports  at  the 


90  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

outbreak  of  hostilities  to  depart  on  their  return  voyages.  The  same  privilege  has 
been  accorded  to  enemy  merchant  vessels  which  sailed  before  the  outbreak  of 
hostilities,  to  enter  and  depart  from  a  belligerent  port  without  molestation  on  the 
homeward  voyage.  It  was  therefore  the  view  of  the  American  delegation  that 
the  privilege  had  acquired  such  international  force  as  to  place  it  in  the  category 
of  obligations.  Such,  indeed,  was  the  view  of  a  majority  of  the  Conference,  but 
as  the  delegation  of  Great  Britain  adhered  to  the  opinion  that  such  free  entry  and 
departure  was  a  matter  of  grace,  or  favor,  and  not  one  of  strict  right,  the  articles 
regard  it  as  a  delay  by  way  of  favor  and  refer  to  the  practice  as  desirable.  .  .  . 
The  foregoing  convention  was  not  signed  by  the  delegation,  and  its  accept- 
ance as  a  conventional  obligation  is  not  recommended. 

VII. — CONVENTION    FOR   RKGULATING   THE;   TRANSFORMATION   OF   VEJSSELS    OF    COM- 

UtRCt  INTO  VESSELS  OF  WAR 

The  delegation  found  no  objection  to  the  requirements  of  the  foregoing  con- 
vention in  so  far  as  its  application  to  the  transformation  of  purchased  or  char- 
tered vessels  into  public  armed  vessels  is  concerned.     ... 

.  .  .  In  view  of  the  constitutional  origin  and  nature  of  the  right  to  grant 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  right  has 
been  exercised  by  Congress,  it  seemed  to  the  American  delegation  inadvisable 
to  seek  to  bind  the  United  States  by  conventional  stipulations. 

VIII. CONVENTION  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  PLACING  OF  SUBMARINE  MINES 

The  question  of  imposing  restrictions  upon  the  employment  of  submarine 
mines  gave  rise  to  extensive  discussion  and  was  made  the  subject  of  numerous 
propositions.  Some  of  these  were  adopted  and  some  were  rejected  by  the  Con- 
ference.    .     .     . 

The  convention  as  adopted  by  the  conference  in  plenary  session  was  generally 
acceptable  to  maritime  Powers  and  was  approved  by  the  delegation  of  the  United 
States. 

IX. — CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  BOMBARDMENT  OF  UNDEFENDED  PORTS,  CITIES, 
AND  VILLAGES  BY  NAVAL  FORCES  IN  TIME  OF  WAR 

The  question  which  the  Conference  undertook  to  regulate  by  a  convention 
might  be  considered  academic  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  possibility  of  the 
bombardment  of  undefended  ports,  cities,  and  villages  has  been  suggested  and 
fear  expressed  that  it  be  carried  into  practice.  It  is  therefore  advisable  to  prevent 
in  express  terms  the  occurrence  of  such  bombardments ;  a  precedent  exists,  and  the 
convention  brings  the  rules  of  land  and  naval  warfare  into  exact  harmony.     .     .     . 

From  the  humanitarian  standpoint  the  convention  is  desirable,  and  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  naval  operations  can  suffer  by  the  observance  of  the  conventional 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  91 

restrictions.    The  American  delegation,  therefore,  approved  and  signed  the  con- 
vention. 

X. — CONVENTION   FOR  THE)  ADAPTATION   OF  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  GENEVA   CON- 
VENTION TO  MARITIME  WAR 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  convention  to  replace  the  corresponding  requirements 
of  the  maritime  convention  of  July  29,  1899,  in  respect  to  the  care  and  treatment 
of  the  sick  and  wounded  in  maritime  warfare.     .     .     . 

XI. — CONVENTION    WITH    REGARD   TO    CERTAIN    RESTRICTIONS    UPON    THE   RIGHT    OF 

CAPTURE  TN   MARITIME  WAR 

This  convention  marks  an  important  step  in  advance,  in  that  it  confers  an 
immunity  from  capture  upon  all  postal  correspondence,  public  or  private,  carried 
as  mail  on  a  neutral  or  enemy  vessel.  The  parcels  post  is  excepted  or,  to  speak 
more  correctly,  is  not  expressly  included  in  the  conventional  immunity.  The 
carrying  vessel  is  not  exempt  from  seizure  in  a  proper  case,  but  in  the  event  of 
capture  the  belligerent  becomes  charged  with  the  duty  of  forwarding  the  mails  to 
their  destination  "with  the  least  possible  delay."     .     .     . 

XII. CONVENTION  REGARDING  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  AN    INTERNATIONAL  PRIZE 

COURT 

The  details  of  this  convention,  as  would  be  expected  in  an  act  organizing  an 
international  prize  court,  are  complicated.  The  fundamental  principle,  however, 
is  simple,  namely,  that  the  court  of  the  captor  should  not  pass  ultimately  upon  the 
propriety  or  impropriety  of  a  seizure  made  by  the  national  authorities  of  which 
the  judge  is  a  subject  or  citizen;  in  other  words,  that  one  should  not  be  judge  in 
his  own  cause.  It  is  stated  by  judges  of  the  highest  repute,  the  great  Lord 
Stowell  among  the  number,  that  a  prize  court  is  an  international  court,  although 
sitting  within  the  captor's  territory  and  established  in  pursuance  of  the  rules  and 
regulations  issued  by  the  captor;  that  the  law  administered  in  such  a  court  is 
international  law;  and  that  the  judgment  of  the  court,  in  the  absence  of  fraud, 
is  universally  binding.  This  may  be  the  theory,  although  it  seems  much  like  a 
fiction,  for  the  fact  is  that  prize  courts  or  courts  exercising  prize  jurisdiction 
are  constituted  by  the  municipal  authorities;  that  the  judges  are  appointed,  as 
other  municipal  judges,  by  the  sovereign  power  of  the  State ;  that  the  law  adminis- 
tered in  the  court  whether  it  be  largely  international  in  its  nature  or  not,  is  the 
municipal  or  the  prize  law  of  the  appointing  country,  and  that  the  judgment  de- 
livered has  the  essential  qualities  of  a  national  judgment.  Even  if  the  court  were 
strictly  international,  the  judge  is,  nevertheless,  a  citizen  or  subject  of  the  captor, 
and  national  prejudices,  bias,  or  an  indisposition  to  thwart  the  settled  policy  of 
his  country  must  insensibly  influence  the  judge  in  the  formation  of  his  opinion. 


92  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

The  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  validity  of  the  capture;  upon  the  neutral  is 
imposed  the  hard  and  difficult  task  to  overcome  this  presumption,  and  the  fre- 
quency with  which  judgments  of  courts  of  prize,  even  of  the  highest  and  most 
respectable  courts,  have  been  protested  through  diplomatic  channels  and  the 
questions  submitted  anew  to  the  examination  of  mixed  commissions  and  decided 
adversely  to  the  captor,  would  seem  to  establish  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that,  in- 
ternational in  theory,  they  are  national  in  fact  and  lack  the  impartiality  of  an 
international  tribunal.  Nor  are  instances  lacking  of  the  submission  of  questions 
to  a  mixed  commission  which  have  been  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  sitting  as  a  court  of  appeal  in  prize  cases  and  in  which  the 
United  States  has  by  virtue  of  an  adverse  decision  of  a  mixed  commission  reim- 
bursed the  claimants.  Reference  is  made  by  way  of  example  to  the  well-known 
case  of  The  Circassian  ([1864]  2  Wall.,  135,  160),  in  which  the  British  and 
American  mixed  commission  made  awards  in  favor  of  all  the  claimants.  (4 
Moore's  International  Arbitrations,  pp.  3911-3923.) 

The  purpose,  then,  of  the  convention  is  to  substitute  international  for  national 
judgment  and  to  subject  the  decision  of  a  national  court  to  an  international  tribu- 
nal composed  of  judges  trained  in  maritime  law.  It  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
framers  of  the  convention  to  exclude  a  judge  of  the  captor's  country  whose 
presence  on  the  bench  would  ensure  a  careful  consideration  of  the  captor's  point 
of  view,  but  to  make  the  decision  of  the  case  depend  upon  strangers  to  the  contro- 
versy who,  without  special  interest  and  national  bias,  would  apply  in  the  solution 
of  the  case  international  law  and  equity.  The  national  judgment  becomes  inter- 
national ;  the  judgment  of  the  captor  yields  to  the  judgment  of  the  neutral,  and  it 
can  not  be  doubted  that  neutral  Powers  are  more  likely  to  guard  the  rights  of 
neutrals  than  any  bench  composed  exclusively  of  national  judges. 

It  is  not  to  be  presumed,  however,  that  the  judgment  of  the  captor  will  be 
biased  or,  if  the  judgment  of  the  court  of  first  instance  be  incorrect,  that  its 
judgment  will  not  be  reversed  on  appeal  to  the  higher  court.  It  can  not  be  sup- 
posed that  a  judgment  of  a  district  court  of  the  United  States,  if  improper,  would 
be  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States;  and  it  may  safely  be 
assumed  that  few  litigants  would  care  to  carry  a  case  from  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  to  an  international  court,  wherever  and  however  established. 
Delay  and  expense  would  militate  against  it,  the  known  impartiality  and  the 
reputation  of  the  Supreme  Court  would  counsel  against  it,  and  it  would  only  be  an 
extreme  case  and  one  of  great  importance  that  would  induce  private  suitor  or 
National  Government  to  seek  a  reexamination  of  the  case  before  an  international 
court. 

The  American  delegation  was  unwilling  to  allow  an  appeal  directly  from  the 
district  court  .to  the  international  court,  as  in  the  original  German  project,  holding 
that  the  captor's  court  of  appeal  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  correct 'or 
revise  a  judgment  and  that  if  a  case  be  submitted  to  the  international  court  that 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  93 

court  would  derive  inestimable  benefit  from  a  careful  consideration  of  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  project  was  amended  so  as  to  permit  one  national 
appeal,  out  of  consideration  to  the  objections  of  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  and  when  so  amended  was  acceptable  to  both. 

The  provisions  of  Article  46  are  of  importance  in  this  connection.  This 
article  provides,  briefly,  that  each  party  pays  its  own  expenses;  the  defeated  party 
the  expenses  of  the  procedure  and  in  addition  pays  into  the  court  1  per  cent,  of 
the  value  of  the  object  in  litigation  to  the  general  expenses  of  the  court.  Finally, 
if  the  suitor  be  not  a  sovereign  State,  but  a  private  individual,  a  bond  may  be 
exacted  by  the  court  to  guarantee  the  expenses  above  mentioned  as  a  condition 
of  taking  jurisdiction.  It  needs  no  further  argument  to  show  that  a  case  is  not 
likely  to  be  presented  to  the  international  court  unless  the  amount  or  principle 
involved  justifies  the  submission. 

Admitting,  however,  the  possibility  of  appeal,  it  is  important,  in  the  interest 
of  international  justice  as  well  as  in  the  interest  of  the  individual  suitor,  that 
there  be  an  end  of  litigation  and  that  the  principle  of  law  applicable  to  the  concrete 
case  be  established  in  a  judicial  proceeding.  It  is  therefore  provided  that  the 
appeal  from  the  court  of  first  instance  to  the  national  court  of  appeal  shall  have 
been  perfected  and  the  case  decided  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  capture, 
which  period  was  acceptable  to  Great  Britain,  a  joint  proposer  with  Germany, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  appeal  might  be  from  a  British  vice-admiralty 
court  situated  in  a  remote  quarter  of  the  globe.  An  examination  of  all  the 
appeals  taken  from  the  judgments  of  district  courts  in  cases  arising  out  of  the 
late  Spanish-American  war  shows  that  this  period  of  time  was  adequate  for  the 
ultimate  disposition  of  those  cases  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  The  period,  therefore,  was  satisfactory  to  the  American  delegation.  But 
it  might  happen  that  the  case  was  not  settled  either  in  the  court  of  first  instance 
or  in  the  national  court  of  appeal  within  the  conventional  period  of  two 
years.  In  such  a  case  it  is  provided  that  the  case  may  be  transferred  from  the 
national  court  and  submitted  to  the  International  Court  of  Prize  at  The  Hague. 
Should  these  provisions  commend  themselves  generally,  cases  will  be  decided 
promptly  by  national  courts,  and  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  International  Court, 
if  one  there  is  to  be,  will  be  handed  down  before  the  suitor  is  broken  in  fortune 
and  years. 

The  proposed  Court  is  to  consist  of  fifteen  judges,  of  whom  nine  shall  consti- 
tute the  quorum  necessary  for  the  transaction  of  business.  (Art.  14.)  They  are 
to  be  chosen  from  among  jurists  of  recognized  competency  in  questions  of  inter- 
national maritime  law  and  should  possess  the  highest  moral  consideration.  They 
are  to  be  nominated  for  a  period  of  six  years,  and  their  appointment  may  be  re- 
newed. Of  the  fifteen  judges,  eight  countries  possess  the  right  to  nominate  each 
a  judge  to  serve  for  the  full  period  of  six  years.  In  the  alphabetical  order  of 
the  French  names  these  countries  are  Germany,  the  United  States  of  America, 


94  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Austria-Hungary,  France,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  Japan,  and  Russia.  The  remain- 
ing seven  judges  are  appointed  for  a  like  period  of  six  years,  but  exercise  their 
functions  as  judge  within  a  shorter  period,  the  length  of  active  service  depending 
largely  upon  the  commercial  and  maritime  importance  of  the  various  nations, 
their  supposed  interest  in  the  questions  likely  to  come  before  the  court,  and  the 
frequency  with  which  they  may  appear  as  suitors.  The  exact  manner  in  which 
and  the  periods  during  which  all  the  other  judges  shall  be  called  to  exercise  their 
functions  appear  from  the  table  annexed  to  the  convention  and  made  a  part 
thereof.  (Art.  15.)  Any  classification  is  bound  to  be  more  or  less  arbitrary, 
and  its  acceptance  demands  no  little  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  State  which  pos- 
sesses less  than  the  full  representation.  It  was  felt  that  the  continuous  presence 
in  the  Court  of  judges  representing  the  eight  States  mentioned  would  form  a 
nucleus  of  trained  judges  and  that  the  weight  and  authority  of  these  judges  based 
upon  training  and  experience  would  counterbalance  the  disadvantage  of  the 
changes  introduced  in  the  Court  by  the  successive  participation  of  representatives 
of  different  countries. 

As  the  proposed  Court  is  to  be  international  and  is  to  be  established  primarily 
to  settle  peaceably  and  by  judicial  methods  controversies  arising  between  State 
and  State  involving  the  validity  of  capture,  the  sovereign  States  whose  interests 
are  involved  in  the  controversy  may  appear  before  the  Prize  Court  just  as  such 
sovereign  States  in  other  than  prize  matters  may  and  do  actually  appear  before  an 
arbitration  tribunal.  It  may  thus  be  that  sovereign  States  will  ordinarily  be  par- 
ties plaintiff  and  defendant. 

It  may,  however,  happen  that  a  State  does  not  wish  to  Espouse  the  cause  of 
its  citizen,  although  convinced  that  an  injustice  has  been  committed.  In  such  a 
case  it  would  seem  to  be  eminently  proper  that  the  injured  individual  should  him- 
self appear  before  the  Court  and  litigate  the  question.  The  fourth  article  of 
the  convention  invests  an  individual  claimant  with  such  right ;  but,  lest  the  exercise 
of  the  right  may  prove  embarrassing  to  the  State,  the  same  article  makes  this  right 
depend  upon  the  permission  of  the  State  whereof  the  claimant  is  a  subject  or  citi- 
zen, and  acknowledges  the  right  of  such  State  either  to  prevent  his  appearance  or 
to  appear  on  behalf  of  such  subject  or  citizen.  It  is  thus  seen  that  whether  the 
State  is  party  litigant  or  not,  it  reserves  fully  the  right  to  control  the  litigation. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  proposed  Court  is  dealt  with  in  Article  7,  the  transla- 
tion of  which  is  as  follows : 

If  the  question  of  law  to  be  decided  is  provided  for  by  a  convention  in 
force  between  the  belligerent  captor  and  the  Power  which  is  itself  a  party  to 
the  controversy  or  whose  citizen  or  subject  is  a  party  thereto,  the  Interna- 
tional Court  shall  conform  to  the  stipulation  of  the  said  convention. 

In  the  absence  of  such  stipulations,  the  international  court  shall  apply 
the  rules  of  international  law.  If  generally  recognized  rules  do  not  exist,  the 
court  shall  decide  in  accordance  with  general  principles  of  justice  and  equity. 

The  foregoing  provisions  shall  apply  with  regard  to  the  order  of  admis- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  95 

sion  of  evidence  as  well  as  to  the  means  which  may  be  employed  in 
adducing  it. 

If,  in  accordance  with  Article  3,  No.  2  c,  the  appeal  is  based  on  the 
viol?-tion  of  a  legal  provision  enacted  by  the  belligerent  captor,  the  Court 
shall  apply  this  provision. 

The  Court  may  leave  out  of  account  statutes  of  limitation  barring  proce- 
dure according  to  the  laws  of  the  belligerent  captor,  in  case  it  considers  that 
the  consequences  thereof  would  be  contrary  to  justice  and  equity. 

It  can  not  be  denied  that  the  question  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  is  not 
only  of  general  interest,  but  of  fundamental  importance  to  the  contracting  parties. 
The  first  clause  of  the  article  calls  attention  to  conventional  stipulations  which 
if  establishing  rules  of  law,  shall  be  binding  upon  the  Court  in  controversies  be- 
tween parties  to  the  convention.  It  was  hoped  that  the  provisions  of  prize  law 
likely  to  give  rise  to  controversies  would  be  codified  by  the  Conference  and  that, 
therefore,  there  would  be  a  conventional  law  prescribed  by  the  Conference  for 
the  proposed  Court.    A  general  agreement  was  not,  however,  reached. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  as  set  forth  in  Article  7,  was  proposed  by 
Great  Britain,  and  accepted  by  the  Conference  as  interpreted  by  the  learned  and 
distinguished  reporter,  Mr.  Louis  Renault,  from  whose  elaborate  report  the  fol- 
lowing weighty  passages  are  quoted  as  the  best  contemporary  interpretation  of 
the  article: 

What  rules  of  law  will  the  new  Prize  Court  apply? 

This  is  a  question  of  the  greatest  importance,  the  delicacy  and  gravity  of 
which  can  not  be  overlooked.  It  has  often  claimed  the  attention  of  those 
who  have  thought  of  the  establishment  of  an  international  jurisdiction  on 
the  subject  we  are  considering. 

If  the  laws  of  maritime  warfare  were  codified,  it  would  be  easy  to  say 
that  the  International  Prize  Court,  the  same  as  the  national  courts,  should 
apply  international  law.  It  would  be  a  regular  function  of  the  international 
court  to  revise  the  decisions  of  the  national  courts  which  had  wrongly  applied 
or  interpreted  the  international  law.  The  international  courts  and  the  na- 
tional courts  would  decide  in  accordance  with  the  same  rules,  which  it  would 
be  supposed  ought  merely  to  be  interpreted  more  authoritatively  and  impar- 
tially by  the  former  courts  than  by  the  latter.  But  this  is  far  from  being  the 
case.  On  many  points,  and  some  of  them  very  important  ones,  the  laws  on 
maritime  warfare  are  still  uncertain,  and  each  nation  formulates  them  accord- 
ing to  its  ideas  and  interests.  In  spite  of  the  efforts  made  at  the  present 
Conference  to  diminish  these  uncertainties,  one  can  not  help  realizing  that 
many  will  continue  to  exist.    A  serious  difficulty  at  once  arises  here. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  where  there  are  rules  established  by  treaty, 
whether  they  are  general  or  are  at  least  common  to  the  nations  concerned  in 
the  capture  (the  captor  nation  and  the  nation  to  which  the  vessel  or  cargo 
seized  belongs),  the  International  Court  will  have  to  conform  to  these  rules. 
Even  in  the  absence  of  a  formal  treaty,  there  may  be  a  recognized  customary 
rule  which  passes  as  a  tacit  expression  of  the  will  of  the  nations.  But  what 
will  happen  if  the  positive  law,  written  or  customary,  is  silent?    There  ap- 


96  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

pears  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  solution  dictated  by  the  strict  principles  of 
legal  reasoning  should  prevail.  Wherever  the  positive  law  has  not  expressed 
itself,  each  belligerent  has  a  right  to  make  his  own  regulations,  and  it  can  not 
be  said  that  they  are  contrary  to  a  law  which  does  not  exist.  In  this  case, 
how  could  the  decision  of  a  national  prize  court  be  revised  when  it  has 
merely  applied  in  a  regular  manner  the  law  of  its  country,  which  law  is  not 
contrary  to  any  principle  of  international  law?  The  conclusion  would  there- 
fore be  that  in  default  of  an  international  rule  firmly  established,  the  Inter- 
national Court  shall  apply  the  law  of  the  captor. 

Of  course  it  will  be  easy  to  offer  the  objection  that  in  this  manner  there 
would  be  a  very  changeable  law,  often  very  arbitrary  and  even  conflicting, 
certain  belligerents  abusing  the  latitude  left  them  by  the  positive  law.  This 
would  be  a  reason  for  hastening  the  codification  of  the  latter  in  order  to 
remove  the  deficiencies  and  the  uncertainties  which  are  complained  of  and 
which  bring  about  the  difficult  situation  which  has  just  been  pointed  out. 

However,  after  mature  reflection,  we  believe  that  we  ought  to  propose 
to  you  a  solution,  bold  to  be  sure,  but  calculated  considerably  to  improve  the 
practice  of  international  law.  "If  generally  recognized  rules  do  not  exist, 
the  Court  shall  decide  according  to  the  general  principles  of  justice  and 
equity."  It  is  thus  called  upon  to  create  the  law  and  to  take  into  account 
other  principles  than  those  to  which  the  national  prize  court  was  required  to 
conform,  whose  decision  is  assailed  by  the  International  Court.  We  are  con- 
fident that  the  judges  chosen  by  the  Powers  will  be  equal  to  the  task  which 
is  thus  imposed  upon  them,  and  that  they  will  perform  it  with  moderation 
and  firmness.  They  will  interpret  the  rules  of  practice  in  accordance  with 
justice  without  overthrowing  them.  A  fear  of  their  just  decisions  may  mean 
the  exercise  of  more  wisdom  by  the  belligerents  and  the  national  judges,  may 
lead  them  to  make  a  more  serious  and  conscientious  investigation,  and  pre- 
vent the  adoption  of  regulations  and  the  rendering  of  decisions  which  are 
too  arbitrary.  The  judges  of  the  international  court  will  not  be  obliged  to 
render  two  decisions  contrary  to  each  other  by  applying  successively  to  two 
neutral  vessels  seized  under  the  same  conditions  different  regulations  estab- 
lished by  the  two  belligerents.  To  sum  up,  the  situation  created  for  the  new 
prize  court  will  greatly  resemble  the  condition  which  has  long  existed  in  the 
courts  of  countries  where  the  laws,  chiefly  customary,  were  still  rudimentary. 
These  courts  made  the  law  at  the  same  time  that  they  applied  it,  and  their 
decisions  constituted  precedents,  which  become  an  important  source  of  the 
law.  The  most  essential  thing  is  to  have  judges  who  inspire  perfect  confi- 
dence. If,  in  order  to  have  a  complete  set  of  international  laws,  we  were 
to  wait  until  we  had  judges  to  apply  it,  the  event  would  be  a  prospective  one 
which  even  the  youngest  of  us  could  hardly  expect  to  see.  A  scientific  society, 
such  as  the  Institute  of  International  Law,  was  able,  by  devoting  twelve 
years  to  the  work,  to  prepare  a  set  of  international  regulations  on  maritime 
prizes  in  which  the  organization  and  the  procedure  of  the  international  court 
have  only  a  very  limited  scope.  The  community  of  civilized  nations  is  more 
difficult  to  set  on  foot  than  an  association  of  jurisconsults ;  it  must  be  subject 
to  other  considerations  or  even  other  prejudices,  the  reconcilement  of  which 
is  not  so  easy  as  that  of  legal  opinions.  Let  us  therefore  agree  that  a  court 
composed  of  eminent  judges  shall  be  entrusted  with  the  task  of  supplying  the 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  97 

•  deficiencies  of  positive  law  until  the  codification  of  international  law  regu- 
larly undertaken  by  the  Governments  shall  simplify  their  task. 

The  ideas  which  have  just  been  set  forth  will  be  applicable  with  regard 
to  the  order  of  admission  of  evidence  as  well  as  to  the  means  which  may  be 
employed  in  gathering  it.  In  most  countries  arbitrary  rules  exist  regarding 
the  order  of  admission  of  evidence.  To  use  a  technical  expression,  upon 
whom  does  the  burden  of  proof  rest?  To  be  rational  one  would  have  to 
say  that  it  is  the  captor's  place  to  prove  the  legality  of  the  seizure  that  is 
made.  This  is  especially  true  in  case  of  a  violation  of  neutrality  charged 
against  a  neutral  vessel.  Such  a  violation  should  not  be  presumed.  And 
still  the  captured  party  is  frequently  required  to  prove  the  nullity  of  the 
capture,  and  consequently  its  illegality,  so  that  in  case  of  doubt  it  is  the  cap- 
tured party  (the  plaintiff)  who  loses  the  suit.  This  is  not  equitable  and  will 
not  be  imposed  upon  the  International  Court. 

What  has  just  been  said  regarding  the  order  of  evidence  also  applies 
to  the  means  of  gathering  it,  regarding  which  more  or  less  arbitrary  rules 
exist.  How  can  the  nationality,  ownership,  and  the  domicile  be  proven? 
Is  it  only  by  means  of  the  ship's  papers,  or  also  by  means  of  documents,  pro- 
duced elsewhere  ?    We  believe  in  allowing  the  Court  full  power  to  decide. 

Finally,  in  the  same  spirit  of  broad  equity,  the  Court  is  authorized  not 
to  take  into  account  limitations  of  procedure  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  the 
belligerent  captor,  when  it  deems  that  the  consequences  thereof  would  be 
unreasonable.  For  instance,  there  may  be  provisions  in  the  law  which  are 
too  strict  with  regard  to  the  period  for  making  appeal  or  which  enable  a  relin- 
quishment of  the  claim  to  be  too  easily  presumed,  etc. 

There  is  a  case  in  which  the  International  Court  necessarily  applies  sim- 
ply the  law  of  the  captor,  namely,  the  case  in  which  the  appeal  is  founded  on 
the  fact  that  the  national  court  has  violated  a  legal  provision  enacted  by 
the  belligerent  captor.  This  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which  a  subject  of  the 
enemy  is  allowed  to  appeal.    (Art.  3,  No.  2  c,  at  end.) 

Article  7,  which  has  thus  been  commented  upon,  is  an  obvious  proof  of 
the  sentiment  of  justice  which  animates  the  authors  of  the  draft,  as  well  as 
of  the  confidence  which  they  ref>ose  in  the  successful  operation  of  the  insti- 
tution to  be  created. 

The  expediency  of  the  establishment  of  the  Prize  Court  must  naturally  be 
determined  by  those  entrusted  with  such  matters.  The  question  of  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  proposed  international  court  of  prize  as  a  treaty  court  would 
seem  to  be  precluded  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
Re  Ross  (140  U.  S.,  453).  Indeed,  it  would  seem  that  that  may  well  be  done  gen- 
erally which  may  be  done  singly  or  individually  and  that  the  submission  of  prize 
cases  to  an  international  court  of  appeal  definitely  constituted  and  in  session  is 
a  wiser,  safer,  and  more  commendable  practice  than  to  submit  questions  of  prize 
law  to  a  mixed  commission  which  may,  as  happened  in  the  past,  decide  contrary 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  the  advantages  of  a  permanent  court  to  which  an 
appeal  may  be  taken,  and  in  view  of  the  guaranteed  impartiality  of  an  interna- 


98  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

tional  decision,  composed  as  the  Court  would  be  in  large  majority  by  neutrals, 
and  in  view  also  of  the  determined  policy  of  the  United  States  to  remain  a  neutral 
in  all  international  conflicts,  it  would  seem  that  we  need  scarcely  fear  the  reversal 
of  the  decisions  of  our  courts  because  such  decisions  presuppose  a  war  to  which 
we  are  a  party.  The  existence  of  the  Court  offers  our  citizens  an  international 
forum  in  which  to  safeguard  their  interests  as  neutral  buyers  and  carriers  in  all 
parts  of  the  world.  The  American  delegation,  therefore,  not  only  approved  and 
signed  the  convention,  but  proposed  it  jointly  with  Germany,  Great  Britain,  and 
France. 

XIII. CONVENTION   CONCERNING  THE  RIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF  NEUTRAL  POWERS  IN 

CASE  OF  MARITIME  WAR 

This  convention  deals  with  the  important  subject  of  maritime  neutrality  and 
formulates  the  progress  which  has  been  made  in  that  subject  in  the  past  half 
century.     ... 

XIV. — ^DECLARATION  FORBIDDING  THE  LAUNCHING  OF  PR0JECT1LE:s  FROM 

BAI^LOONS 

.  ,  .  The  declaration  was  a  reenactment  of  the  analogous  provision  of  the 
First  Conference,  which,  however,  being  for  a  period  of  five  years,  had  elapsed. 
In  order  to  prevent  the  lapse  of  the  present  declaration,  it  was  provided  that  it 
should  remain  in  effect  until  the  end  of  the  Third  Conference. 


DECLARATION    CONCERNING   OBLIGATORY  ARBITRATION 

The  Conference  was  unable  to  agree  upon  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration, 
although  a  large  majority  expressed  itself  in  favor  of  a  general  treaty  of  arbitra- 
tion, reserving  therefrom  questions  concerning  the  independence,  vital  interests, 
and  honor,  and  setting  forth  a  list  of  concrete  subjects  in  which  the  contracting 
Powers  were  willing  to  renounce  the  honor  clause.  The  principle  of  obligatory 
arbitration  was  unanimously  admitted  in  the  abstract,  but  when  it  was  proposed 
to  incorporate  this  principle  in  a  concrete  case  or  series  of  cases  insurmountable 
difficulties  arose.  Some  Powers  seemed  willing  to  conclude  arbitration  treaties 
with  certain  other  carefully  selected  Powers,  but  were  unwilling  to  bind  them- 
selves with  the  remaining  nations  of  the  world.  Other  nations  were  willing  to 
renounce  the  honor  clause  in  some  subjects  but  not  in  others.  It  seemed  to  the 
friends  of  arbitration  feasible  to  do  generally  in  a  single  instrument  what  they 
had  agreed  to  do  in  separate  treaties  with  various  countries.  The  majority  felt 
that  it  was  desirable  to  conclude  at  The  Hague  a  general  arbitration  treaty  bind- 
ing those  who  were  willing  to  be  bound,  without  seeking,  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  coerce  the  minority,  which  was  unwilling  to  bind  itself.  The  minority,  how- 
ever, refused  to  permit  the  majority  to  conclude  such  a  treaty,  invoking  the  prin- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  '  99 

ciple  of  unanimity  or  substantial  unanimity  for  all  conventions  concluded  at  The 
Hague.  In  the  interest  of  conciliation  the  majority  yielded,  although  it  did  not 
share  the  point  of  view  of  the  minority.  The  minority  on  its  part  recognized  un- 
equivocally and  reservedly  the  principle  of  obligatory  arbitration,  and  the  fol- 
lowing declaration  was  unanimously  accepted  and  proclaimed  by  the  Conference: 

The  Conference,  conforming  to  the  spirit  of  good  understanding  and 
reciprocal  concessions  which  is  the  very  spirit  of  its  deliberations,  has  drawn 
up  the  following  declaration,  which,  while  reserving  to  each  one  of  the  Powers 
represented  the  benefit  of  its  votes,  permits  them  all  to  affirm  the  principles 
which  they  consider  to  have  been  unanimously  accepted. 

It  is  unanimous : 

1.  In  accepting  the  principle  for  obligatory  arbitration. 

2.  In  declaring  that  certain  differences,  and  notably  those  relating  to 
the  interpretation  and  application  of  international  conventional  stipulations, 
are  susceptible  of  being  submitted  to  obligatory  arbitration  without  any 
restrictions. 

The  friends  of  arbitration  were  bitterly  disappointed  and  the  American  dele- 
gation abstained  from  voting  on  the  declaration;  first,  because  it  seemed  to  be 
an  inadmissible  retreat  from  the  advanced  position  secured  by  an  affirmative  vote 
of  four  to  one  in  favor  of  the  arbitration  convention,  and,  second,  lest  an  affirma- 
tive vote  be  construed  to  indicate  both  an  approval  of  the  arguments  or  methods  of 
the  minority  as  well  as  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  proposed  treaty.  It  may  be 
admitted  that  the  establishment  of  the  principle  of  obligatory  arbitration  is  an 
advance.  It  is  not,  however,  the  great  advance  so  earnestly  desired;  for  a  con- 
crete treaty  embodying  the  principle  of  obligatory  arbitration  would  have  been 
infinitely  more  valuable  than  the  declaration  of  obligatory  arbitration,  however 
solemnly  made. 

RESOLUTION    CONCERNING   THE)   LIMITATION   OF   MILITARY    CHARGES 

It  is  familiar  knowledge  that  the  First  Peace  Conference  was  called  primarily 
to  "secure  a  possible  reduction  of  the  excessive  armaments  which  weigh  upon 
all  nations,"  and  in  the  program  contained  in  the  second  Russian  circular  (Janu- 
ary 11,  1899)  one  of  the  purposes  was  stated  to  be  *'to  reach  an  understanding  not 
to  increase  for  a  fixed  period  the  present  effective  of  the  armed  military  and  naval 
forces,  and  at  the  same  time  not  to  increase  the  budgets  pertaining  thereto,  and 
a  preliminary  examination  of  the  means  by  which  a  reduction  might  even  be 
effected  in  the  future  in  the  forces  and  budgets  above  mentioned."  The  First 
Conference  failed  to  agree  upon  a  limitation  or  a  restriction,  but  adopted  unani- 
mously the  following  resolution : 

The  Conference  is  of  opinion  that  the  restriction  of  military  charges, 
which  are  at  present  a  heavy  burden  on  the  world,  is  extremely  desirable  for 
the  increase  of  the  material  and  moral  welfare  of  mankind. 


100  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

The  Second'  Conference  was  equally  unprepared  to  limit  armaments,  to  place 
a  restriction  upon  military  or  naval  forces,  or  to  bind  the  nations  not  to  increase 
the  budgets  pertaining  thereto.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  United  States 
reserved  the  right  to  bring  the  question  to  discussion,  although  as  such  it  did  not 
figure  on  the  program.  Pursuant  to  this  reservation  and  instructions  from  the 
Secretary  of  State  the  American  delegation  insisted  that  the  subject  be  discussed 
and  in  and  out  of  Conference  lent  it  support.  By  general  agreement  a  resolution 
was  introduced,  supported  in  an  address  by  the  first  British  delegate  and  in  a  letter 
written  by  the  first  American  delegate  on  behalf  of  the  delegation.  The  following 
resolution  was  thereupon  unanimously  adopted: 

The  Second  Peace  Conference  confirms  the  resolution  adopted  by  the 
Conference  of  1899  in  regard  to  the  limitation  of  military  burdens;  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  military  burdens  have  considerably  increased  in  nearly 
all  countries  since  the  said  year,  the  Conference  declares  that  it  is  highly 
desirable  to  see  Governments  take  up  again  the  serious  study  of  that  subject. 

THE  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE 

In  addition  to  the  conventions,  declarations,  and  resolution,  the  Conference 
emitted  five  desires  or  voeux,  the  first  of  which  is  in  the  nature  of  a  resolution. 
Of  each  of  these  in  turn — 

The  Conference  recommends  to  the  signatory  Powers  the  adoption  of 
the  project  hereunto  annexed,  of  a  Convention  for  the  establishment  of  a 
Court  of  Arbitral  Justice  and  its  putting  in  effect  as  soon  as  an  accord  shall 
be  reached  upon  the  choice  of  the  judges  and  the  constitution  of  the  Court. 

An  analysis  of  this  paragraph  shows  that  the  establishment  of  the  Court  is 
not  the  expression  of  a  mere  wish  or  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Conference,  but 
that  it  is  a  recommendation  to  the  Powers  to  undertake  the  establishment  of  the 
court.  In  the  next  place,  the  project  of  convention  annexed  to  the  recommenda- 
tion is  not  to  be  submitted  as  a  plan  or  as  a  model,  but  for  adoption  as  the  organic 
act  of  the  Court.  Again,  the  convention  annexed  and  made  a  part  of  the  recom- 
mendation goes  forth  not  only  with  the  approval  of  the  Conference,  but  as  a 
solemn  act  adopted  by  it.  And,  finally,  accepting  the  convention  as  the  organic 
act,  the  Conference  recommends  that  the  Court  be  definitely  and  permanently 
established  by  the  Powers  as  soon  as  they  shall  have  agreed  upon  a  method  of 
appointing  the  judges,  who,  when  appointjed,  thus  constitute  the  Court.  It  will 
be  noted  that  the  number  of  Powers  necessary  to  establish  the  Court  is  not  stated, 
nor  is  the  number  of  judges  determined.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Powers 
wishing  to  establish  the  Court  are  free  to  adopt  the  project  of  convention,  agree 
upon  the  method  of  choosing  the  judges,  and  establish  the  Court  at  The  Hague 
for  the  trial  of  cases  submitted  by  the  contracting  Powers. 

The  establishment  of  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice  would  not  interfere  with 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  101 

the  Court  of  Arbitration  instituted  by  the  Conference  of  1899,  and  continued  by 
the  Conference  of  1907,  for  this  latter  is  a  temporary  tribunal,  erected  for  a 
particular  purpose,  to  decide  as  arbiters  a  controversy  submitted.  The  Court  of 
Arbitral  Justice,  on  the  contrary,  is  meant  to  be  a  permanent  court,  composed  of 
judges  acting  under  a  sense  of  judicial  responsibility,  representing  the  various 
legal  systems  of  the  world,  and  capable  of  assuring  the  continuity  of  arbitral 
jurisprudence.  (Art.  1.)  The  contracting  Powers  are  free  to  appoint  either  a 
large  or  a  small  number  of  judges ;  but  it  is  provided  in  Article  3  that  the  judges 
so  appointed  shall  hold  office  for  a  period  of  twelve  years  and  that  they  shall  be 
chosen  from  among  persons  enjoying  the  highest  moral  consideration  who  meet 
the  requirements  for  admission  in  their  respective  countries  to  the  high  magis- 
tracy, or  who  shall  be  jurists  of  recognized  competency  in  matters  of  interna- 
tional law.   (Art.  2.) 

From  these  provisions  it  is  evident  that  the  proposed  institution  is  to  be  not 
merely  in  name  but  in  fact  a  court  of  justice;  that  it  is  to  be  permanent  in  the 
sense  that  it  does  not  need  to  be  constituted  for  any  and  every  case  submitted 
to  it.  It  is  obvious  that  such,  a  court,  acting  under  a  sense  of  judicial  respon- 
sibility, would  decide,  as  a  court,  according  to  international  law  and  equity,  a 
question  submitted  to  it,  and  that  the  idea  of  compromise  hitherto  so  inseparable 
from  arbitration,  would  be  a  stranger  to  this  institution.  The  Court  is  said  to  be 
permanent  in  the  sense  that  it  holds,  as  courts  do,  certain  specified  terms  for  the 
trial  of  cases.    For  example,  Article  14  says: 

The  Court  assembles  in  session  once  a  year.  The  session  begins  on  the 
third  Wednesday  of  June  and  lasts  until  the  calendar  shall  have  been  ex- 
hausted. 

The  Court  does  not  assemble  in  session  if  the  meeting  is  deemed  un- 
necessary by  the  delegation.  If,  however,  a  Power  is  a  party  to  a  case 
actually  pending  before  the  Court,  the  preliminary  proceedings  of  which  are 
completed  or  near  completion,  that  Power  has  the  right  to  demand  that  the 
session  take  place. 

The  delegation  may,  in  case  of  necessity,  call  an  extraordinary  session 
of  the  Court. 

It  was  deemed  inexpedient  to  have  an  empty  Court  at  The  Hague,  and  it  was 
felt  that  without  a  judicial  committee  capable  of  transacting  the  ordinary  business 
that  might  be  submitted,  permanency  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word  would  be 
lacking,  therefore  it  is  provided  by  Article  6  of  the  project  that — 

The  Court  designates,  every  year,  three  judges  who  constitute  a  special 
delegation  and  three  others  who  are  to  take  their  places  in  case  of  disability. 
They  may  be  reelected.  The  vote  is  cast  by  blanket  ballot.  Those  who  obtain 
the  larger  number  of  votes  are  considered  to  be  elected.  The  delegation 
elects  its  own  president,  who,  failing  a  majority,  is  drawn  by  lot. 

A  member  of  the  delegation  is  barred  from  the  exercise  of  his  functions 


102  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

when  the  Power  by  which  he  was  appointed,  and  under  whose  jurisdiction  he 
is,  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the  case. 

The  members  of  the  delegation  bring  to  a  conclusion  the  cases  that  may 
have  been  referred  to  therein,  even  though  their  term  of  office  should  have 
expired. 

Taking  the  two  articles  together,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Court  as  such  is 
intended  to  be  permanently  in  session  at  The  Hague ;  that  the  judicial  committee 
will  attend  to  the  smaller  cases  submitted,  and  that  the  full  Court  will  meet  in 
ordinary  or  extraordinary  session  once  a  year  or  whenever  the  business  before  it 
would  justify  its  assembling.  The  judges  are  intended  to  be  permanent  court 
officials  and  as  such  to  receive  stated  salaries  whether  they  are  actively  engaged 
at  The  Hague  in  the  trial  of  cases  or  not.  The  compensation  is  small  (6,000 
florins),  but  the  honor  is  great.  If,  however,  a  judge  sits  as  a  trial  judge  at  The 
Hague,  his  expenses  to  and  from  The  Hague  are  paid  according  to  the  rate  al- 
lowed in  the  home  country  for  the  traveling  expenses  of  a  judge  in  service,  and 
in  addition  the  judge  is  to  receive  the  further  sum  of  100  florins  a  day  during  his 
official  service  in  the  examination  or  trial  of  cases. 

The  first  article  speaks  of  a  court  free  and  easy  of  access.  It  is  easy  of  access 
because  it  is  permanent  and  has  stated  terms.  It  is  free  because  no  fees  are  paid 
for  entrance,  and  it  is  likewise  free  in  this  sense:  That  the  salaries  of  the  judges 
are  not  paid  by  the  litigating  parties,  but  proportionately  by  the  contracting 
Powers.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  is  very  wide;  for  example,  "the  Court  of 
Arbitral  Justice  is  competent  to  decide  all  cases  which  are  submitted  to  it  by  vir- 
tue of  a  general  stipulation  of  arbitration  or  by  a  special  agreement"  (Art.  17)  ; 
that  is  to  say,  if  there  be  a  general  treaty  of  arbitration  designating  the  Court  of 
Arbitral  Justice,  the  Court  is  competent,  if  the  cause  of  action  be  presented,  to 
assume  jurisdiction  and  to  decide  the  case.  It  may  be  that  parties  to  a  controversy 
may  submit  the  finding  of  a  commission  of  inquiry  to  the  Court  in  order  to  have 
the  legal  responsibility  established  in  an  appropriate  case,  or  it  may  be  that  parties 
to  an  arbitration  may  wish  to  have  the  case  examined  when  on  appeal  or  de  novo 
by  the  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice.  In  such  a  case,  by  virtue  of  the  special  agree- 
ment of  the  parties  litigant,  the  Court  is  invested  with  jurisdiction. 

It  was  not  thought  advisable  to  clothe  the  judicial  committee  with  the  juris- 
diction of  the  full  Court,  lest  there  be  two  competing  institutions.  The  judicial 
committee  is,  however,  expected  to  be  a  serviceable  body,  and  its  jurisdiction  is 
commensurate  with  its  dignity.    For  example.  Article  18  provides : 

The  delegation  (Art.  6)  is  competent —  / 

1.  To  hear  arbitration  cases  coming  under  the  foregoing  article,  if  the 
parties  agree  upon  demanding  the  application  of  summary  procedure  as  de- 
termined in  Title  IV,  Chapter  IV,  of  the  Convention  of  July  29,  1899. 

2.  To  institute  an  inquiry  by  virtue  of  and  in  conformity  to  Title  III 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  .  103 

of  the  Convention  of  July  29,  1899,  in  so  far  as  the  delegation  may  have  been 
charged  with  this  duty  by  the  litigants  acting  in  common  accord.  With  the 
assent  of  the  parties  and'  in  derogation  of  Article  7,  section  1,  members  of 
the  delegation  who  took  part  in  the  inquiry  may  sit  as  judges  if  the  dispute 
comes  for  arbitration  before  either  the  Court  or  the  delegation  itself. 

The  judicial  committee,  therefore,  is  competent  to  sit  as  the  Court  of  sum- 
mary proceeding  in  cases  where  parties  litigant  agree  to  make  use  of  the  summary 
proceeding  of  the  revised  convention.  It  is  likewise  competent  to  sit  as  a  commis- 
sion of  inquiry ;  and  as  the  commission  of  inquiry  finds  facts,  there  seems  to  be  no 
reason  why  the  members  of  the  judicial  committee  may  not  sit  as  judges  if  the 
litigation  is  submitted  to  the  full  Court  or  to  the  delegation. 

Article  19  invests  the  judicial  committee  with  the  power  to  frame  th6  special 
agreement — that  is  to  say,  the  comipromis  provided  for  in  Article  52  of  the  Con- 
vention for  the  peaceful  adjustment  of  international  differences,  already  men- 
tioned— unless  there  be  an  agreement  or  stipulation  to  the  contrary. 

The  procedure  of  the  Court  has  not  been  neglected,  but  finds  an  appropriate 
place  in  the  project  of  convention. 

The  establishment  of  the  permanent  court  was  proposed  by  the  Am'erican 
delegation,  was  accepted  in  principle  and  loyally  supported  by  the  delegations  of 
Germany  and  Great  Britain,  and  the  project  actually  framed  and  recommended 
by  the  Conference  is  the  joint  work  of  the  American,  German,  and  British  dele- 
gations. It  should  be  said,  however,  that  the  project  could  not  have  been  adopted 
without  the  loyal  and  unstinted  support  of  France. 

From  this  brief  exposition  it  is  evident  that  the  foundations  of  a  permanent 
court  haye  been  broadly  and  firmly  laid;  that  the  organization,  jurisdiction,  and 
procedure  have  been  drafted  and  recommended  in  the  form  of  a  code  which  the 
Powers  or  any  number  of  them  may  accept  and,  by  agreeing  upon  the  appoint- 
ment of  judges,  call  into  being  a  court  at  once  permanent  and  international.  A 
little  time,  a  little  patience,  and  the  great  work  is  accomplished.     .     .     . 

The  final  desire  of  the  Conference  is  in  the  nature  of  a  recommendation  and 
is  as  follows : 

Lastly,  the  Conference  recommends  to  the  Powers  the  holding  of  a 
Third  Peace  Conference  which  might  take  place  within  a  period  similar  to 
that  which  has  elapsed  since  the  preceding  Conference  on  a  date  to  be  set  by 
joint  agreement  among  the  Powers,  and  it  draws  their  attention  to  the  neces- 
sity of  preparing  the  labors  of  that  Third  Conference  sufficiently  in  advance 
to  have  its  deliberations  follow  their  course  with  the  requisite  authority 
and  speed. 

In  order  to  achieve  that  object,  the  Conference  thinks  it  would  be  very 
desirable  that  a  preparatory  committee  be  charged  by  the  Governments 
about  two  years  before  the  probable  date  of  the  meeting  with  the  duty  of 
collecting  the  various  propositions  to  be  brought  before  the  Conference,  to 
seek  out  the  matters  susceptible  of  an  early  international  settlement,  and  to 


104  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

■  prepare  a  program  which  the  Governments  should  determine  upon  early 
enough  to  permit  of  its  being  thoroughly  examined  in  each  country.  The 
committee  should  further  be  charged  with  the  duty  of  proposing  a  mode  of 
organization  and  procedure  for  the  conference  itself. 

The  desire  of  the  friends  of  progress  is  to  have  the  Hague  Conference  a 
permanent  institution,  which  meets  at  certain  regular  periods,  automatically  if 
possible,  and  beyond  the  control  of  any  one  Power.  The  American  delegation 
was  instructed  to  secure,  if  possible,  this  result,  and  through  the  efforts  of  the 
American  delegation  this  result  was  reached  in  large  measure.  It  is  difficult,  if 
not  impossible,  for  one  legislative  body  to  bind  its  successor.  It  is  doubly  difficult 
for  a  quasi-legislative  or  diplomatic  assembly  to  bind  a  succeeding  assembly.  It 
was  therefore  thought  advisable  not  to  attempt  to  fix  the  date  absolutely,  but  to 
recommend  that  a  Third  Conference  meet  within  or  at  about  the  period  which  has 
elapsed  between  the  calling  of  the  First  and  the  assembling  of  the  Second  Con- 
ference, leaving  the  exact  date  to  be  fixed  by  the  Powers. 

Experience  has  shown  that  much  time  is  lost  not  merely  in  organizing  a 
Conference,  but  in  preparing  and  presenting  the  various  projects.  It  is  desirable 
that  the  projects  be  prepared  in  advance  so  that  they  may  be  presented,  printed, 
and  distributed  at  the  opening  of  the  session.  This  the  Conference  recommended. 
But  to  prepare  the  various  propositions  to  be  submitted  to  the  Conference  it  is 
necessary  to  determine  in  advance,  at  least  tentatively,  the  program.  The  Con- 
ference therefore  recommended  that  some  two  years  before  the  probable  date 
of  the  Conference  a  preparatory  committee  be  charged  by  the  various  Govern- 
ments to  collect  propositions,  to  ascertain  the  matters  susceptible  of  international 
regulation,  and  to  prepare  the  program  sufficiently  in  advance  of  the  meeting  that 
it  may  be  seriously  and  maturely  considered  by  each  Government  intending  to 
take  part. 

The  wisdom  of  these  provisions  is  so  apparent  that  any  justification  of  them 
seems  unnecessary.  The  last  clause,  however,  can  not  be  passed  in  silence,  as  its 
importance  is  f unadmental ;  for,  in  simple  terms,  it  means  that  the  Conference  is 
not  to  be  organized  or  the  method  of  procedure  determined  by  any  single  Power. 
In  other  words,  the  Conference,  it  would  seem,  is  to  be  given  over  to  itself.  The 
committee  of  the  Powers  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  proposing  a  mode  of  organi- 
zation and  procedure  for  the  Conference,  and  it  can  not  be  doubted  that  the  com- 
mittee, consisting  of  leading  and  representative  Powers,  will  propose  a  mode  of 
organization  and  procedure  which  will  permit  the  Conference  to  organize  itself 
and  conduct  its  proceedings  without  requiring  the  guidance  and  direction  of  any 
particular  Power.  Its  officers  may  be  elected  by  the  Conference,  rather  than 
appointed,  and  if  so  elected  or  selected  by  the  Conference  it  is  safe  to  assume  that 
they  will  be  not  only  in  harmony  with  its  purposes,  but  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Conference.  In  any  case  the  recommendation  is  of  the  greatest 
importance,  because  it  shows  a  unanimous  desire  on  the  part  of  the  Powers  pres- 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  105 

ent  for  the  calling  of  a  Third  Conference,  and  it  indicates  in  no  uncertain  terms 
that  the  Conference  in  becoming  in  the  largest  sense  international  is  not  to  be 
under  the  control  or  predominance  of  any  one  nation. 

Such  is,  in  brief,  the  work  of  the  Second  International  Peace  Conference. 
It  is  believed  that  the  various  measures  adopted  by  it  and  recommented  to  the 
favorable  consideration  of  the  Powers  will  meet  with  general  approval.  It  is 
hoped  that  the  reasons  set  forth,  briefly,  in  the  present  report  may  justify  the 
delegates  in  signing  the  various  measures  and  that  their  action  as  a  whole  may 
meet  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  State. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servants, 

Joseph  H.  Choatk,  Chairman. 

Chandler  Hale,  Secretary. 


XVII 

The  Recommendations  of  Habana  Concerning  International  Organiza- 
tion, Adopted  by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law  at 
its  Second  Session  in  the  City  of  Habana,  January  23,  1917 

WHEREAS  the  independent  existence  of  civilized  nations  and  their  soli- 
darity of  interests  under  the  conditions  of  modern  life  has  resulted  in  a  society  of 
nations ;  and 

WHEREAS  the  safety  of  nations  and  the  welfare  of  their  peoples  depend 
upon  the  application  to  them  of  principles  of  law  and  equity  in  their  mutual 
relations  as  members  of  civilized  society;  and 

WHEREAS  the  law  of  nations  can  best  be  formulated  and  stated  by  the 
nations  assembled  for  this  purpose  in  international  conferences ;  and 

WHEREAS  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  society  of  nations  that  international 
agreements  be  made  effective  by  ratification  and  observance  on  all  occasions,  and 
that  some  agency  of  the  society  of  nations  be  constituted  to  act  for  it  during  the 
intervals  between  such  conferences;  and 

WHEREAS  the  principles  of  law  and  equity  can  best  be  ascertained  and 
applied  to  the  disputes  between  and  among  the  nations  by  a  court  of  justice 
accessible  to  all  in  the  midst  of  the  independent  Powers  forming  the  society  of 
civilized  nations ; 

THEREFORE  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law,  at  its  second 
session,  held  in  the  City  of  Habana,  in  the  Republic  of  Cuba,  on  the  23d  day  of 
January,  1917,  adopts  the  following  recommendations,  to  be  known  as  its 
Recommendations  of  Habana. 

I.  The  call  of  a  Third  Hague  Conference  to  which  every  country  belonging 
to  the  society  of  nations  shall  be  invited  and  in  whose  proceedings  every  such 
country  shall  participate. 

H.  A  stated  meeting  of  the  Hague  Peace  Conference  which,  thus  meeting 
at  regular,  stated  periods,  will  become  a  recommending  if  not  a  law-making  body. 

HI.  An  agreement  of  the  States  forming  the  society  of  nations  concerning 
the  call  and  procedure  of  the  Conference,  by  which  that  institution  shall  become 
not  only  internationalized ,  but  in  which  no  nation  shall  take  as  of  right  a  pre- 
ponderating part. 

IV.  The  appointment  of  a  committee,  to  meet  at  regular  intervals  between 
the  Conferences,  charged  with  the  duty  of  procuring  the  ratification  of  the  Con- 
ventions and  Declarations  and  of  calling  attention  to  the  Conventions  and  Declara- 
tions in  order  to  insure  their  observance. 

106 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  107 

V.  An  understanding  upon  certain  fundamental  principles  of  international 
lazv,  as  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations  adopted 
by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law  on  lanuary  6,  ipi6,  which  are 
themselves  based  upon  decisions  of  English  courts  and  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States. 

VI.  The  creation  of  an  international  council  of  conciliation  to  consider,  to 
discuss,  and  to  report  upon  such  questions  of  a  non-justiciable  character  as  may  be 
submitted  to  such  council  by  an  agreement  of  the  Powers  for  this  purpose. 

VII.  The  employment  of  good  offices,  mediation,  and  friendly  composition 
for  the  settlement  of  disputes  of  a  non-justiciable  nature. 

VIII.  The  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settlement  of  disputes  of  a  non- 
justiciable nature;  also  of  disputes  of  a  justiciable  nature  which  should  be  decided 
by  a  court  of  justice,  but  which  have,  through  delay  or  mismanagement,,  assumed 
such  political  im^portance  that  the  nations  prefer  to  submit  them  to  arbiters  of 
their  own  choice  rather  than  to  judges  of  a  permanent  judicial  tribunal. 

IX.  The  negotiation  of  a  convention  creating  a  judicial  union  of  the  nations 
along  the  lines  of  the  Universal  Postal  Union  of  ipo6,  to  which  all  civilised 
nations  and  self-governing  dominions  are  parties,  pledging  the  good  faith  of  the 
contracting  parties  to  submit  their  justiciable  disputes — that  is  to  say,  their  dif- 
ferences involving  law  or  equity — to  a  permanent  court  of  this  union,  whose 
decisions  will  bind  not  only  the  litigating  nations,  but  also  all  parties  to  its  creation. 

X.  The  creation  of  an  elightened  public  opinion  in  behalf  of  peaceable  settle- 
ment in  general,  and  in  particular  in  behalf  of  the  foregoing  nine  propositions,  in 
order  that,  if  agreed  to,  they  may  be  put  into  practice  and  become  effective,  in 
response  to  the  appeal  to  that  greatest  of  sanctions,  "a  decent  respect  to  the 
opinions  of  mankind!^ 


XVIII 

Commentary  on  the  Recommendations  of  Habana  Concerning  Inter- 
national Organization,  adopted  January  23,   1917. — By  James 
Brown  Scott,  Director  of  the  Division  of  International  Law, 
Carnegie  Endowment  for  International  Peace 

/.  The  call  of  a  Third  Hague  Conference  to  which  every  country  belonging 
to  the  society  of  nations  shall  he  invited  and  in  whose  proceedings  every  such 
country  shall  participate. 

If  it  be  true  that  in  a  multitude  of  counselors  there  is  safety  and,  as  we  may 
hope,  wisdom,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  larger  the  number  of  the  nations 
met  in  conference  the  greater  the  safety  and  the  greater  the  wisdom.  Indeed, 
there  are  those,  whose  opinions  are  entitled  to  respect,  who  see  in  the  meeting 
of  the  Hague  Conferences  a  greater  hope  and  a  greater  promise  than  in  the  work 
of  their  hands.  The  Hague  Conference  of  1899  was  composed  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  twenty-six  States ;  its  successor  of  1907  represented  officially  no  less 
than  forty-four  sovereign,  free,  and  independent  States,  which,  taken  together, 
well  nigh  make  up  the  society  of  civilized  nations. 

In  speaking  of  the  value  of  the  Hague  Peace  Conferences  of  1899  and  1907, 
Secretary  Root  said  that : 

The  most  valuable  result  of  the  Conferences  of  1899  was  that  it  made 
the  work  of  the  Conference  of  1907  possible.  The  achievements  of  the 
Conferences  justify  the  belief  that  the  world  has  entered  upon  an  orderly 
process  through  which,  step  by  step,  in  successive  Conferences,  each  taking 
the  work  of  its  predecessor  as  its  point  of  departure,  there  may  be  continual 
progress  toward  making  the  practice  of  civilized  nations  conform  to  their 
peaceful  professions. 

And,  still  further  developing  the  same  thought,  he  added : 

The  question  about  each  international  conference  is  not  merely  what  it 
has  accomplished,  but  also  what  it  has  begun,  and  what  it  has  moved  forward. 
Not  only  the  conventions  signed  and  ratified,  but  the  steps  taken  toward 
conclusions  which  may  not  reach  practical  and  effective  form  for  manv  years 
to  come,  are  of  value.  Some  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  last  confer- 
ence do  not  seem  to  amount  to  very  much  by  themselves,  but  each  one  marks 
on  some  line  of  progress  the  farthest  point  to  which  the  world  is  yet  willing 
to  go.    They  are  like  cable  ends  buoyed  in  mid-ocean,  to  be  picked  up  here- 

108 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  109 

after  by  some  other  steamer,  spliced,  and  continued  to  shore.  The  greater 
the  reform  proposed,  the  longer  must  be  the  process  required  to  bring-  many 
nations  differing  widely  in  their  laws,  customs,  traditions,  interests,  preju- 
dices, into  agreement.  Each  necessary  step  in  the  process  is  as  useful  as  the 
final  act  which  crowns  the  work  and  is  received  with  public  celebration. 

//.  A  stated  meeting  of  the  Hague  Peace  Conference  which,  thus  meeting  at 
regular,  stated  periods,  will  become  a  recommending  if  not  a  law-making  body. 

Without  a  radical  reorganization  of  the  society  of  nations,  difficult,  time- 
consuming,  and  perhaps  impossible  to  bring  about,  the  Conventions  and  Declara- 
tions adopted  by  the  Conference  are  to  be  considered  not  as  international  statutes, 
but  as  recommendations,  which  must  be  submitted  to  the  nations  taking  part  in 
the  Conference  for  their  careful  examination  and  approval.  By  the  ratification 
of  each  of  these,  and  by  the  deposit  of  the  ratifications  at  The  Hague  in  accord- 
ance with  the  terms  of  the  Conventions  and  Declarations  recommended  by 'the 
Conference,  they  become  at  one  and  the  same  time  national  and  international 
laws:  national  laws  because  they  have  been  ratified  by  the  law-making  body  of 
each  of  the  countries,  and  international  laws  because,  by  the  ratification  and  the 
deposit  of  the  ratifications  at  The  Hague,  they  have  assumed  the  form  and  effect 
of  treaties,  that  is  to  say  statutes,  of  the  contracting  parties. 

On  the  method  of  procedure  of  such  an  international  conference.  Secretary 
Root  said  in  his  instructions  to  the  Delegates  of  the  United  States  to  the  Second 
Hague  Peace  Conference: 

In  the  discussions  upon  every  question  it  is  important  to  remember  that 
the  object  of  the  Conference  is  agreement,  and  not  compulsion.  If  such 
Conferences  are  to  be  made  occasions  for  trying  to  force  nations  into  posi- 
tions which  they  consider  against  their  interests,  the  Powers  can  not  be 
expected  to  send  representatives  to  them.  It  is  important  also  that  the 
agreements  reached  shall  be  genuine  and  not  reluctant.  Otherwise  they  will 
inevitably  fail  to  receive  approval  when  submitted  for  the  ratification  of  the 
Powers  represented.  Comparison  of  views  and  frank  and  considerate  ex- 
planation and  discussion  may  frequently  resolve  doubts,  obviate  difficulties, 
and  lead  to  real  agreement  upon  matters  which  at  the  outset  have  appeared 
insurmountable.  It  is  not  wise,  however,  to  carry  this  process  to  the  point 
of  irritation.  After  reasonable  discussion,  if  no  agreement  is  reached,  it  is 
better  to  lay  the  subject  aside,  or  refer  it  to  some  future  Conference  in  the 
hope  that  intermediate  consideration  may  dispose  of  the  objections.  Upon 
some  questions  where  an  agreement  by  only  a  part  of  the  Powers  represented 
would  in  itself  be  useful,  such  an  agreement  may  be  made,  but  it  should  al- 
ways be  with  the  most  unreserved  recognition  that  the  other  Powers  withhold 
their  concurrence  with  equal  propriety  and  right. 

You  should  keep  always  in  mind  the  promotion  of  this  continuous 
process  through  which  the  progressive  developm-ent  of  international  justice 
and  peace  may  be  carried  on ;  and  you  should  regard  the  work  of  the  Second 
Conference,  not  merely  with  reference  to  the  definite  results  to  be  reached 


110  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

in  that  Conference,  but  also  with  reference  to  the  foundations  which  may  be 
laid  for  further  results  in  future  Conferences.  It  may  well  be  that  among 
the  most  valuable  services  rendered  to  civilization  by  this  Second  Conference 
will  be  found  the  progress  made  in  matters  upon  which  the  delegates  reach 
no  definite  agreement. 

The  irreducible  minimum  may  well  be  the  maximum  of  achievement  at  any 
given  time,  and  in  all  our  meetings,  and  in  all  our  discussions,  we  should  bear  in 
mind  the  wise  counsel  of  an  illustrious  French  statesman  at  the  First  and  Second 
Hague  Peace  Conferences  that:    We  are  here  to  unite,  not  to  be  counted. 

///.  An  agreement  of  the  States  forming  the  society  of  nations  concerning 
the  call  and  procedure  of  the  Conference.^  by  which  that  institution  shall  become 
not  only  internationalised,  but  in  which  no  nation  shall  take  as  of  right  a  prepon- 
derating part. 

The  delegation  of  the  United  States  to  the  Second  Hague  Peace  Conference 
was  thus  instructed  by  the  then  Secretary  of  State: 

You  will  favor  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  by  the  Conference  providing 
for  the  holding  of  further  Conferences  within  fixed  periods  and  arranging 
the  machinery  by  which  such  Conferences  may  be  called  and  the  terms  of 
the  program  may  be  arranged,  without  awaiting  any  new  and  specific  initia- 
tive on  the  part  of  the  Powers  or  any  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Root  then  went  on  to  say : 

Encouragement  for  such  a  course  is  to  be  found  in  the  successful  work- 
ing of  a  similar  arrangement  for  international  conferences  of  the  American 
Republics.  The  Second  American  Conference,  held  in  Mexico  in  1901-2, 
adopted  a  resolution  providing  that  a  third  conference  should  meet  within 
five  years,  and  committed  the  time  and  place  and  the  program  and  necessary 
details  to  the  Department  of  State  and  representatives  of  the  American 
States  in  Washington.  Under  this  authority  the  Third  Conference  was 
called  and  held  in  Rio  de  Janeiro  in  the  summer  of  1906,  and  accomplished 
results  of  substantial  value.  That  Conference  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

The  governing  board  of  the  International  Bureau  of  American 
Republics  (composed  of  the  same  official  representatives  in  Washing- 
ton) is  authorized  to  designate  the  place  at  which  the  Fourth  Inter- 
national Conference  shall  meet,  which  meeting  shall  be  within  the  next 
five  years ;  to  provide  for  the  drafting  of  the  program  and  regulations 
nnd  to  take  into  consideration  all  other  necessary  details ;  and  to  set 
another  date  in  case  the  meeting  of  the  said  Conference  can  not  take 
place  within  the  prescribed  limit  of  time. 

There  is  no  apparent  reason  to  doubt  that  a  similar  arrangement  for 
successive  general  international  conferences  of  all  the  civilized  Powers  would 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  111 

prove  as  practicable  and  as  useful  as  in  the  case  of  the  twenty-one  American 
States. 

The  delegation  of  the  United  States  complied  with  both  the  letter  and  spirit 
of  these  instructions,  brought  the  subject  of  a  stated  international  conference  to 
the  attention  of  the  delegates  of  the  forty-four  nations  there  assembled,  and 
secured  the  following  recommendation,  a  first  step  toward  the  realization  of  a 
larger  purpose : 

Finally,  the  Conference  recommends  to  the  Powers  the  assembly  of  a 
Third  Peace  Conference,  which  might  be  held  within  a  period  corresponding 
to  that  which  has  elapsed  since  the  preceding  Conference,  at  a  date  to  be 
fixed  by  common  agreement  between  the  Powers,  and  it  calls  their  attention 
to  the  necessity  of  preparing  the  program  of  this  Third  Conference  a  suffi- 
cient time  in  advance  to  ensure  its  deliberations  being  conducted  with  the 
necessary  authority  and  expedition. 

In  order  to  attain  this  object  the  Conference  considers  that  it  would  be 
very  desirable  that,  some  two  years  before  the  probable  date  of  the  meet- 
ing, a  preparatory  committee  should  be  charged  by  the  governments  with 
the  task  of  collecting  the  various  proposals  to  be  submitted  to  the  Con- 
ference, of  ascertaining  what  subjects  are  ripe  for  embodiment  in  an  inter- 
national regulation,  and  of  preparing  a  program  which  the  governments 
should  decide  upon  in  sufficient  time  to  enable  it  to  be  carefully  examined 
by  the  countries  interested.  This  committee  should  further  be  intrusted 
with  the  task  of  proposing  a  system  of  organization  and  procedure  for  the 
Conference  itself. 

IV.  The  appointment  of  a  committee,  to  meet  at  regular  intervals  between 
the  Conferences,  charged  with  the  duty  of  procuring  the  ratification  of  the  Con- 
ventions and  Declarations  and  of  calling  attention  to  the  Conventions  and  Declara- 
tions in  order  to  insure  their  observance. 

In  Mr.  Root's  instructions  to  the  American  delegation  to  the  Second  Hague 
Peace  Conference,  the  governing  board  of  the  International  Bureau  of  American 
Republics,  now  called  the  Pan  American  Union,  was  suggested  as  a  possible 
method  of  organization  for  the  nations  meeting  in  conference  at  The  Hague. 
The  American  delegation  did  not  lay  before  the  Conference  the  method  of  organi- 
zation found  satisfactory  to  the  American  Republics  and  did  not  propose  that  it 
be  adopted,  because,  as  the  result  of  private  discussion,  it  appeared  unlikely  that 
the  method  would  at  that  time  meet  with  favor,  and  indeed  it  seemed  probable 
that  its  proposal  would  prejudice  those  representatives  of  governments  against 
the  periodic  meeting  of  conferences  who  thought  they  saw  in  cooperation  of  this 
kind  a  step  toward  federation. 

There  is,  however,  a  body  already  in  existence  at  The  Hague,  similar  in  all 
respects  to  the  governing  board  of  the  Pan  American  Union  at  Washington, 


112  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

which  can  be  used  for  like  purposes  if  the  governments  only  become  conscious 
of  the  services  which  it  could  render  if  it  were  organized  and  invested  with  cer- 
tain powers.  The  body  at  Washington  forming  the  governing  board  is  composed 
of  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  the  American  Republics  accredited  to  the 
United  States ;  the  body  at  The  Hague  is  formed  of  the  diplomatic  representatives 
of  the  Powers  accredited  to  the  Netherlands.  If  they  should  be  authorized  by 
their  respective  governments  to  meet,  either  in  the  Foreign  Office  or  the  Peace 
Palace  at  The  Hague  at  regular  intervals  between  the  conferences,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  themselves  or  their  countries,  they  would,  by  the  mere  fact  of  this 
association,  form  a  governing  board  in  which  all  nations  would  of  right  be  repre- 
sented which  cared  to  maintain  diplomatic  agents  at  The.  Hague.  By  the  mere 
fact  of  this  association  they  would  also,  even  without  express  authority,  gradually 
and  insensibly  assume  the  duty  of  procuring  the  ratification  of  the  Conventions 
and  Declarations  of  the  Conference  and  of  calling  the  attention  of  the  Powers 
represented  at  The  Hague  to  the  Conventions  and  Declarations,  and  in  case  of 
need  to  their  provisions,  in  order  that  they  might  be  observed. 

The  first  step  toward  this  consummation  has  already  been  taken.  Twenty- 
six  nations  at  the  First  created  and  forty-four  nations  confirmed  at  the  Second 
Hague  Peace  Conference  an  organization  for  administering  the  affairs  of  the 
so-called  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration  by  availing  themselves  of  the  diplomatic 
agents  accredited  to  The  Hague,  as  shown  in  the  following  extract  from  the 
Convention  for  the  Pacific  Settlement  of  International  Disputes : 

A  Permanent  Administrative  Council,  composed  of  the  diplomatic  repre- 
sentatives of  the  signatory  Powers  accredited  to  The  Hague  and  of  the 
Netherlands  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  who  will  act  as  president,  shall  be 
instituted  in  this  town  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  ratification  of  the  present 
Act  by  at  least  nine  Powers. 

This  Council  will  be  charged  with  the  establishment  and  organization 
of  the  International  Bureau  [of  the  Permanent  Court  of  Arbitration],  which 
will  be  under  its  direction  and  control. 

It  will  notify  to  the  Powers  the  constitution  of  the  Court,  and  will 
provide  for  its  installation. 

It  will  settle  its  rules  of  procedure  and  all  other  necessary  regulations. 

It  will  decide  all  questions  of  administration  which  may  arise  with  regard 
to  the  operations  of  the  Court. 

It  will  have  entire  control  over  the  appointment,  suspension,  or  dismissal 
of  the  officials  and  employes  of  the  Bureau. 

It  will  fix  the  payments  and  salaries,  and  control  the  general  expenditure. 

At  meetings  duly  summoned  the  presence  of  five  members  is  sufficient 
to  render  valid  the  discussions  of  the  Council.  The  decisions  are  taken  by  a 
majority  of  votes. 

The  Council  communicates  to  the  signatory  Powers  without  delay  the 
regulations  adopted  by  it.  It  furnishes  them  with  an  annual  report  on  the 
labors  of  the  Court,  the  working  of  the  administration,  and  the  expenses. 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  113 

What  has  been  done  for  one  may  assuredly  be  done  for  another  purpose, 
and,  without  changing  the  body,  the  nations  merely  need  to  enlarge  its  scope  by 
having  it  perform  the  same  services  for  each  of  the  general  interests  affecting 
"the  solidarity  which  unites  the  members  of  the  society  of  civilized  nations."  If  a 
governing  board  may  act  at  Washington  without  affecting  the  sovereignty,  free- 
dom, and  independence  of  twenty-one  States,  a  governing  board  can  likewise  act  at 
The  Hague  in  the  interest  of  and  without  affecting  the  sovereignty,  freedom, 
and  independence  of  forty-four  States.  There  is  only  one  thing  needed — ^the 
desire  so  to  do. 

In  the  belief  that  the  Powers  may  prefer  to  proceed  more  cautiously,  the 
American  Institute  of  International  Law  ventures  to  suggest  on  this  point  that 
the  Conference  might,  upon  its  adjournment,  appoint  a  committee  charged  with 
the  duty  of  procuring  the  ratification  of  the  Conventions  and  Declarations,  and 
of  calling  attention  to  the  Conventions  and  Declarations  in  order  to  secure  their 
observance;  and  in  the  appointment  of  the  committee  the  Conference  might 
specify  both  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  authority  with  which  it  would  be  clothed. 
This  would  not  be  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  a  Conference  to  bind  its  successor; 
it  would  be  a  recommendation  of  the  Conference  to  the  Powers  represented  in  it, 
the  binding  force  and  effect  of  which  would  result  solely  from  the  acceptance  and 
ratification  of  the  agreement,  as  is  the  case  with  The  Hague  Conventions  or 
Declarations. 

The  appointment  of  such  a  committee  for  limited  and  specific  purposes  is 
highly  desirable,  if  other  and  better  methods  are  not  devised  and  preferred,  and 
it  is  not  without  a  precedent  in  its  behalf  and  favor.  Under  the  9th  of  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  of  the  United  States  the  Congress  appointed  "a  com- 
mittee of  the  States,"  composed  of  one  delegate  from  each  of  the  thirteen  States, 
to  sit  during  the  recess  of  the  Congress,  then  a  diplomatic,  not  a  parliamentary 
body,  to  look  after  the  interests  of  the  States  as  a  whole  and  to  exercise  some, 
but  not  all,  of  the  powers  delegated  to  the  Congress  by  the  States,  which  in  the 
2d  of  the  Articles  had  declared  themselves  to  be  sovereign,  free,  and  independent. 
It  is  important  to  note  that  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  we  are  dealing  with 
sovereign  States  and  to  bear  in  mind  that  sovereignty  is  not  lessened  by  its  mere 
exercise,  because  after  as  before  the  Articles  the  States  were  sovereiign.  What 
thirteen  sovereign,  free,  and  independent  States  have  done,  forty-four  sovereign, 
free,  and  independent  States  may  do,  if  they  only  can  be  made  to  feel  and  to  see 
the  consequences  of  this  simple  step  in  international  development  and  supervision. 

In  further  justification  of  this  modest  recommendation,  the  pacific  settle- 
ment convention  of  the  Hague  Conferences  may  be  cited  which  contains  the  germ 
of  the  recommendation.  Article  27  of  the  Convention  of  1899  and  Article  48 
of  the  revised  Convention  of  1907  deal  with  this  matter.     Thus  Article  27  reads : 


114  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

The  signatory  Powers  consider  it  their  duty,  if  a  serious  dispute  threat- 
ens to  break  out  between  two  or  more  of  them,  to  remind  these  latter  that 
the  Permanent  Court  is  open  to  them. 

It  will  be  observed  that  a  duty  is  here  either  created  or  recognized,  and  either 
view  is  sufficient  for  present  purposes. 

Consequently,  they  declare  that  the  fact  of  reminding  the  contlicting 
parties  of  the  provisions  of  the  present  Convention,  and  the  advice  given  to 
them,  in  the  highest  interests  of  peace,  to  have  recourse  to  the  Permanent 
Court,  can  only  be  regarded  as  friendly  actions. 

The  objection  to  this  article  is  that  it  leaves  the  Powers  free  to  take  or  not 
to  take  action,  although  it  is  stated  to  be  a  duty  to  do  so.  It  can  not  be  too  often 
said  that  everybody's  business  is  nobody's  concern,  and  to  give  effect  to  the  pro- 
vision some  person  or  body  should  be  appointed  whose  duty  it  is  to  comply  with 
the  recommendation  of  the  article.  This  defect  was  obvious  to  the  delegates  of 
the  Second  Conference,  who  apparently  sought  to  remedy  it  by  the  following  addi- 
tion to  the  text  of  Article  27,  which  as  amended  became  Article  48  of  the  revised 
Convention : 

In  case  of  dispute  between  two  Powers,  one  of  them  can  always  address 
to  the  International  Bureau  a  note  containing  a  declaration  that  it  would  be 
ready  to  submit  the  dispute  to  arbitration. 

The  Bureau  must  at  once  inform  the  other  Power  of  the  declaration. 

The  amendment  is  limited  to  the  parties  in  dispute.  The  signatory  Powers 
appear  to  be  overlooked,  and  yet  the  duty  was  created  or  recognized  by  the  article 
as  the  duty  of  the  signatory  or  contracting  Powers  to  remind  the  disputants  that 
the  Permanent  Court  is  open  to  them,  and  the  amendment  merely  permits  the 
Powers  in  dispute  to  avail  themselves  of  the  International  Bureau  to  transmit  a 
proposal  of  arbitration.  Something  more  is  needed  and  yet  the  amendment  serves 
as  a  precedent.  The  article  itself  refers  to  the  provisions  of  the  convention,  and 
expressly  states  that  reminding  the  parties  in  dispute  of  the  provisions  of  the 
convention  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  unfriendly  act.  Following  the  precedent 
created  by  the  amendment  and  enlarging  its  scope,  it  would  seem  to  be  a  proper 
and  friendly  act  on  the  part  of  the  signatory  or  contracting  Powers  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Powers  generally,  not  merely  those  in  dispute,  to  all  the  pro- 
visions of  the  convention  and  indeed  to  the  terms  of  all  the  Conventions  and 
Declarations  of  the  Hague  Conferences,  and  to  invest  somebody  with  the  duty 
of  acting  in  behalf  of  the  signatory  or  contracting  Powers  in  the  performance  of 
what  is  considered  to  be  a  duty.  It  is  a  detail,  although  a  very  important  one, 
whether  the  diplomats  accredited  to  The  Hague,  a  special  committee  thereof,  or 
a  committee  appointed  by  the  Conference  itself,  or  the  International  Bureau, 
should  be  used  for  this  purpose.     The  acceptance  of  the  principle  carries  with 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  115 

it  the  creation  of  apt  agencies,  and  the  wisdoni  of  the  nations  may  be  trusted  to 
devise  the  means  if  they  agree  upon  the  need. 

It  may  well  be  that  the  preparatory  committee  mentioned  by  the  recom- 
mendation for  a  Third  Conference,  "charged  by  the  governments  with  the  task 
of  collecting  the  various  proposals  to  be  submitted  to  the  Conference,  of  ascer- 
taining what  subjects  are  ripe  for  embodiment  in  an  international  regulation," 
will  develop  into  a  standing  committee  entrusted  with  international  interests  be- 
tween the  various  Conferences.  Especially  would  this  be  so  if  the  committee 
were  appointed  by  the  Conference,  instead  of  being  selected  by  agreement  of  the 
Powers  some  time  before  the  calling  of  the  future  Conference.  It  would  not  be 
an  executive ;  it  would  not  be  a  Government ;  it  would,  however,  as  a  committee, 
represent  international  interests  during  the  periods  between  the  Conferences. 

V,  An  understanding  upon  certain  fundamental  principles  of  international 
law,  as  set  forth  in  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations  adopted 
by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law  on  January  6,  igi6,  which  are 
themselves  based  upon  decisions  of  English  courts  and  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States. 

1.  Every  nation  has  the  right  to  exist  and  to  protect  and  to  conserve  its 
existence;  but  this  right  neither  implies  the  right  nor  justifies  the  act  of  the 
State  to  protect  itself  or  to  conserve  its  existence  by  the  commission  of  unlaw- 
ful acts  against  innocent  and  unoffending  States.  (Chinese  Exclusion  Case,  130  U.  S., 
581,  606;  Regina  vs.  Dudley,  15  Cox's  Criminal  Cases,  p.  624,  14  Queen's  Bench  Division,  273.) 

2.  Every  nation  has  the  right  to  independence  in  the  sense  that,  it  has  a 
right  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness  and  is  free  to  develop  itself  without  inter- 
ference or  control  from  other  States,  provided  that  in  so  doing  it  does  not 
interfere  with  or  violate  the  rights  of  other  States. 

3.  Every  nation  is  in  law  and  before  law  the  equal  of  every  other  nation 
belonging  to  the  society  of  nations,  and  all  nations  have  the  right  to  claim 
and,  according  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  of  the  United  States,  "to 
assume,  among  the  Powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate  and  equal  station  to 
which  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nature's  God  entitle  them."  {Le  Louis,  2  Dodson, 
210,  243-4;  The  Antelope,  10  Wheaton,  66,  122.) 

4.  Every  nation  has  the  right  to  territory  within  defined  boundaries  and 
to  exercise  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  its  territory,  and  all  persons,  whether 
native  or  foreign,  found  therein.  (.The  Exchange,  7  Cranch,  116,  136-7.) 

5.  Every  nation  entitled  to  a  right  by  the  law  of  nations  is  entitled  to 
have  that  right  respected  and  protected  by  all  other  nations,  for  right  and 
duty  are  correlative,  and  the  right  of  one  is  the  duty  of  all  to  observe.  (United 
States  vs.  Arjona,  120  U.  S.,  479,  487.) 

6.  International  law  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  both  national  and  inter- 
national: national  in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  law  of  the  land  and  applicable 


116  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

as  such  to  the  decision  of  all  questions  involving  its  principles;  international 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  law  of  the  society  of  nations,  and  applicable  as  such 
to  all  questions  between  and  among  the  members  of  the  society  of  nations 
involving  its  principles.  (Barbuit's  case,  Cases  tempore  Talbot,  p.  281;  Triquet  vs.  Bath, 
3  Burrow,  1478;  Heathfield  vs.  Chilton,  4  Burrow,  2015;  The  Paquete  Habana,  175  U.  S., 
677,  700.) 

VI.  The  creation  of  a  permanent  international  council  of  conciliation  to  con- 
sider, to  discuss,  and  to  report  upon  such  questions  of  a  non- justiciable  character 
as  may  be  submitted  to  such  council  by  an  agreement  of  the  Powers  for  this  pur- 
pose. 

The  prototype  of  this  council  is  the  International  Commission  of  Inquiry 
proposed  by  the  First  Hague  Conference  and  contained  in  its  Convention  for 
the  Pacific  Settlement  of  International  Disputes.  Its  form  may  well  be  that 
adopted  by  Mr.  Bryan  in  the  various  treaties  for  the  advancement  of  peace  which, 
as  Secretary  of  State,  he  concluded  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  with  some 
thirty  foreign  nations.  In  these  it  is  provided  that  all  disputes  which  diplomacy 
has  failed  to  settle,  or  which  have  not  been  adjusted  by  existing  treaties  of  arbi- 
tration, shall  be  laid  before  a  permanent  commission  of  some  five  members,  which 
shall  have  a  year  within  which  to  report  its  conclusions  and  during  which  time 
the  contracting  parties  agree  not  to  resort  to  arms. 

The  Powers  might  agree  to  establish  an  international  commission  as  it  is 
proposed  to  establish  an  international  court,  to  be  composed  of  a  limited  number 
of  members  appointed  for  a  period  of  years,  to  which  perhaps  a  representative 
of  each  of  the  countries  in  controversy  might  be  added,  in  order  that  the  views 
of  the  respective  governments  should  be  made  known  and  be  carefully  considered 
by  those  members  of  the  commission  strangers  to  the  dispute.  In  this  case  there 
would  be  a  permanent  nucleus,  and  the  Powers  at  odds  would  not  be  obliged  to 
agree  upon  the  members  of  the  commission,  but  only  to  appoint,  each  for  itself, 
a  national  member.  In  this  way  the  dispute  could  be  submitted  to  the  commission 
before  it  had  become  acute  and  had  embittered  the  relations  of  the  countries  in 
question. 

If  an  international  commission  of  the  kind  specified  should  be  considered  too 
great  a  step  to  be  taken  at  once,  the  countries  might  conclude  agreements  mod- 
eled upon  those  of  Mr.  Bryan,  and  as  the  result  of  experience  take  such  action  in 
the  future  as  should  seem  possible  and  expedient. 

The  conclusions  of  the  commission  are  in  the  nature  of  a  recommendation 
to  the  Powers  in  controversy,  which  they  are  free  either  to  accept  or  to  reject. 
They  are  not  in  themselves  an  adjustment  as  in  the  case  of  diplomacy,  an  award 
as  in  the  case  of  arbitration,  or  a  judgment  as  in  the  case  of  a  court  of  justice. 
It  is  the  hope  of  the  partisans  of  this  institution  that  its  conclusions  will  neverthe- 
less form  the  basis  of  settlement  and  that,  under  the  pressure  of  enlightened  public 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  117 

opinion,  the  Powers  may  be  minded  to  settle  their  differences  more  or  less  in 
accord  with  the  recommendations  of  the  commission. 

VII.  The  employment  of  good  offices,  mediation,  and  friendly  composition 
for  the  settlement  of  disputes  of  a  non-justiciable  nature. 

Good  offices  and  mediation  were  raised  to  the  dignity  of  an  international  in- 
stitution by  the  First  Hague  Peace  Conference,  and  in  its  Peaceful  Settlement 
Convention  the  signatory  or  contracting  Powers  agreed  to  have  "recourse,  as 
far  as  circumstances  allow,  to  the  good  offices  or  mediation  of  one  or  more 
friendly  Powers,"  and  it  is  specifically  stated  in  the  Convention,  in  order  to 
remove  doubt  or  uncertainty,  that  the  offer  of  good  offices  or  of  mediation  is  not 
to  be  considered  as  an  unfriendly  act — and  the  Powers  might  also  have  added 
that  it  is  not  an  act  of  intervention,  which  nations  resent. 

The  offer  of  good  offices  is  a  word  of  advice,  it  is  not  an  award  or  a  decision. 
Mediation  goes  a  step  further,  as  the  nation  proposing  it  offers  to  cooperate  with 
the  parties  in  effecting  a  settlement.  The  agreement  to  ask  and  to  offer  good 
offices  and  mediation  is  qualified  by  the  expression  "as  far  as  circumstances  will 
allow."  It  is  therefore  highly  desirable  that  frequent  resort  be  made  to  good 
offices  and  mediation,  in  order  that  the  nations  may  learn  from  experience  that 
circumstances  allow  the  offer  and  the  acceptance  of  good  offices  and  mediation 
without  danger  to  either  and  with  satisfaction  to  both. 

Friendly  composition  is  more  than  good  offices  or  mediation,  and  may  be  less 
than  arbitration.  It  is  not  limited  to  advice,  and  it  is  not  restricted  to  coopera- 
tion ;  it  is  the  settlement  of  a  difference  not  necessarily  upon  the  basis  of  law,  but 
rather  according  to  the  judgment  of  a  high-minded  and  conscientious  person 
possessing  in  advance  the  confidence  of  both  parties  to  the  dispute  and  deserving 
it  by  his  adjustment  of  the  dispute. 

It  may  be  a  settlement  in  the  nature  of  a  compromise;  it  may  be  an  adjust- 
ment according  to  the  principles  of  fair  dealing;  it  may  be  a  bargain  according 
to  the  principles  of  give  and  take.  This  remedy  has  been  found  useful  in  the  past, 
and  it  can  be  of  service  in  the  future,  where  it  is  more  to  the  advantage  of  nations 
to  have  a  dispute  adjusted  than  to  have  it  determined  in  any  particular  way. 

VIII.  The  principle  of  arbitration  in  the  settlement  of  disputes  of  a  non- 
justiciable nature ;  also  of  disputes  of  a  justiciable  nature  which  should  be  decided 
by  a  court  of  justice,  but  which  have,  through  delay  or  mismanagement,  assumed 
such  political  importance  that  the  nations  prefer  to  submit  them  to  arbiters  of 
their  own  choice  rather  than  to  judges  of  a  permanent  judicial  tribunal. 

The  arbiter  is  not,  as  is  the  friendly  composer,  a  free  agent  in  the  sense  that 
he  may  render  an  award  in  accordance  with  his  individual  sense  of  right  or 
wrong,  for,  as  the  First  Hague  Peace  Conference  said  in  its  Pacific  Settlement 


118  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

Convention,  "international  arbitration  has  for  its  object  the  settlement  of  differ- 
ences between  States  by  judges  of  their  own  choice,  and  on  the  basis  of  respect 
for  law."  Even  if  law  is  not  absolutely  binding  it  can  not  be  arbitrarily  rejected; 
it  must  be  respected,  and  the  sentence,  if  it  be  not  just  in  the  sense  that  it  is  based 
upon  law,  it  must  be  equitable  in  the  sense  that  it  is  based  upon  the  spirit  of  the 
law  as.  distinct  from  the  letter. 

Hundreds  of  disputes  have  been  settled  since  the  Jay  Treaty  of  1794  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  which  brought  again  this  method  into  repute 
and  into  the  practice  of  nations.  As  a  result  of  this  large  experience,  extending 
over  a  century,  nations  find  it  difficult  to  refuse  arbitration  when  it  has  been  pro- 
posed. But  if  it  is  a  sure,  it  is  a  slow-footed,  remedy,  as  in  the  absence  of  a  treaty 
of  arbitration  one  must  be  concluded,  and,  in  the  practice  of  the  United  States, 
there  must  be  a  special  agreement  submitted  to  and  advised  and  consented  to  by 
the  Senate,  stating  the  exact  nature  and  scope  of  the  arbitration.  The  arbiters 
forming  the  temporary  tribunal  must  likewise  be  chosen  by  the  parties,  and  unfor- 
tunately r.t  a  time  when  they  are  least  inclined  to  do  so.  It  is  a  great  and  a 
beneficent  remedy,  but  the  difficulty  of  setting  it  in  motion  and  the  doubt  that 
the  award  may  be  controlled  by  law  suggest  the  creation  of  a  permanent  tribunal 
which  does  not  need  to  be  composed  for  the  settlement  of  the  case  and  in  which 
law  shall,  as  in  a  court  of  justice,  control  the  decision. 

There  are  many  cases  turning  on  a  point  of  law  and  which  could  be  got  out 
of  the  way,  to  the  great  benefit  of  the  cause  of  international  peace,  if  they  were 
submitted,  when  and  as  they  arose,  to  a  judicial  tribunal.  Unfortunately,  such 
a  tribunal  has  not  existed  in  times  past,  and  many  a  dispute,  by  delay  or  mis- 
management, has  assumed  a  political  importance  which  it  did  not  possess  at  the 
beginning.  Nations  may  have  taken  a  position  upon  it,  and  in  consequence  be 
unwilling  to  change  their  attitude.  Again,  there  are  matters,  largely  if  not  wholly 
political,  or  in  which  the  political  element  dominates,  which  nations  would  prefer 
to  submit  to  a  limited  commission  or  tribunal  composed  of  persons  in  whose  ability 
and  character  they  have  confidence  and  whose  training  seems  to  fit  them  for  the 
disposition  of  the  controversy  in  hand. 

The  reasons  for  a  resort  to  arbitration,  even  although  an  International  Court 
of  Justice  be  established  and  ready  to  receive  and  to  decide  the  case,  have  never 
been  better  stated  than  by  Mr.  Leon  Bourgeois  in  the  following  passage  taken 
from  an  address  advocating  the  retention  of  the  so-called  Permanent  Court  of 
Arbitration  and  of  creating  alongside  of  it  a  permanent  court  composed  of  pro- 
fessional judges,  which  was  proposed  at  the  Second  Hague  Conference  of  1907 
and  adopted  in  principle : 

If  there  are  not  at  present  judges  at  The  Hague,  it  is  because  the  Con- 
ference of  1899,  taking  into  consideration  the  whole  field  open  to  arbitration, 
intended  to  leave  to  the  parties  the  duty  of  choosing  their  judges,  which 
choice  is  essential  in  all  cases  of  peculiar  gravity.     We  should  not  like  to 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  119 

see  the  court  created  in  1899  lose  its  essentially  arbitral  character,  and  we 
intend  to  preserve  this  freedom  in  the  choice  of  judges  in  all  cases  where  no 
other  rule  is  provided. 

In  controversies  of  a  political  nature  especially,  we  think  that  this  will 
always  be  the  real  rule  of  arbitration,  and  that  no  nation,  large  or  small,  will 
consent  to  go  before  a  court  of  arbitration  unless  it  takes  an  active  part  in  the 
appointment  of  the  members  composing  it. 

But  is  the  case  the  same  in  questions  of  a  purely  legal  nature?  Can 
the  same  uneasiness  and  distrust  appear  here  ?  .  .  .  And  does  not  every  one 
realize  that  a  real  court  composed  of  real  jurists  may  be  considered  as  the 
most  competent  organ  for  deciding  controversies  of  this  character  and  for 
rendering  decisions  on  pure  questions  of  law? 

In  our  opinion,  therefore,  either  the  old  system  of  1899  or  the  new  sys- 
tem of  a  truly  permanent  court  may  be  preferred,  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  case.  At  all  events  there  is  no  intention  whatever  of  making  the  new 
system  compulsory.  The  choice  between  the  tribunal  of  1899  and  the  court 
of  1907  will  be  optional,  and  the  experience  will  show  the  advantages  or 
disadvantages  of  the  two  systems. 

IX.  The  negotiation  of  a  convention  creating  a  judicial  union  of  the  nations 
along  the  lines  of  the  Universal  Postal  Union  of  ipod,  to  which  all  civilized  na- 
tions and  self-governing  dominions  are  parties,  pledging  the  good  faith  of  the  con- 
tracting parties  to  submit  their  justiciable  disputes — that  is  to  say,  their  differ- 
ences  involving  lazv  or  equity — to  a  permanent  court  of  this  union,  whose  de- 
cisions will  bind  not  only  the  litigating  nations,  but  also  all  parties  to  its  creation. 

In  the  Universal  Postal  Union,  which  has  been  mentioned  as  the  prototype 
of  a  judicial  union,  all  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world  and  self-governing  do- 
minions have  bound  themselves  to  submit  to  arbitration  their  disputes  concern- 
ing the  interpretation  of  the  Convention  as  well  as  their  disputes  arising  under 
it,  by  a  commission  of  three  arbiters,  of  whom  one  is  to  be  appointed  by  each  of 
the  disputants  and  the  third  in  case  of  need  by  the  arbiters  themselves.  What 
the  nations  have  agreed  to  do  after  they  can  do  before  the  outbreak  of  a  dispute, 
for  the  appointment  in  this  case  is  a  matter  of  time,  not  of  principle. 

The  American  Institute  of  International  Law  calls  especial  attention  to  the 
fact  that  sovereignty  is  not  necessarily  involved  in  the  formation  of  a  judicial 
union,  in  the  appointment  of  the  judges,  or  in  the  operation  of  the  judicial  tri- 
bunal, because  in  the  Universal  Postal  Union  self-governing  dominions  are  par- 
ties, which  could  not  be  the  case  if  sovereignty  were  requisite,  as  they  are  not 
sovereign. 

Should  they  create  a  judicial  union,  and  at  the  time  of  its  formation  install 
a  permanent  tribunal  composed  of  a  limited  number  of  judges,  the  Society  of 
Nations  would  find  itself  possessed  of  a  court  of  justice  composed  in  advance  of 
the  disputes,  ready  to  assume  jurisdiction  of  them  whenever  they  should  arise, 
without  the  necessity  of  creating  the  court,  appointing  its  members,  agreeing 


120  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

upon  the  question  to  be  litigated,  and  in  many,  if  not  in  most,  instances  upon  the 
procedure  to  be  followed. 

The  prototype  of  this  international  court  of  justice  and  its  procedure  is  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  its  procedure,  which  may  be  thus  briefly 
outlined : 

1.  The  Supreme  Court  determines  for  itself  the  question  of  jurisdiction, 
receiving  the  case  if  it  finds  that  States  are  parties  and  if,  as  presented,  it  involves 
questions  of  law  or  of  equity.  (Rhode  Island  vs.  Massachusetts  12  Peters,  657, 
decided  by  Mr.  Justice  Baldwin.) 

3.  If  States  are  parties  to  the  suit,  and  if  it  is  justiciable,  that  is,  if  it  involves 
law  or  equity,  the  plaintiff  State  is,  upon  its  request,  entitled  to  have  a  subpoena 
against  the  defendant  State  issued  by  the  Supreme  Court.  (New  Jersey  vs.  New 
York,  3  Peters,  461,  decided  by  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall ;  New  Jersey  vs.  New 
York,  5  Peters,  284,  decided  by  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall.) 

3.  The  plaintiff  State  has  the  right  to  proceed  ex  parte  if  the  defendant  State 
does  not  appear  and  litigate  the  case.  (New  Jersey  vs.  New  York,  5  Peters,  284, 
decided  by  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall;  Massachusetts  vs.  Rhode  Island,  12 
Peters,  755,  decided  by  Mr.  Justice  Thompson.) 

4.  The  plaintiff  State  has  the  right,  in  the  absence  of  the  defendant  duly 
summoned  and  against  which  a  subpoena  has  been  issued,  to  proceed  to  judgment 
against  the  defendant  State  in  a  suit  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  to  be 
between  States  and  to  be  of  a  justiciable  nature.  (New  Jersey  vs.  New  York, 
5  Peters,  284,  decided  by  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall.) 

5.  In  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  the  Supreme  Court  does  not  compel 
the  presence  of  the  defendant  State  (Massachusetts  vs.  Rhode  Island,  12  Peters, 
755,  decided  by  Mr.  Justice  Thompson),  nor  does  it  execute  by  force  its  judgment 
against  a  defendant  State  (Kentucky  vs.  Dennison,  24  Howard,  66,  decided  by 
Mr.  Chief  Justice  Taney.) 

The  reasonableness  of  the  judgment  and  the  advantage  of  judicial  settle- 
ment have  thus  created  a  public  opinion  as  the  sanction  of  the  Supreme  Court 
in  suits  between  States. 

6.  In  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  the  Supreme  Court  has  moulded  a  sys- 
tem based  upon  equity  procedure  between  individuals  in  such  a  way  as  to  sim- 
plify it,  giving  to  the  defendant  State  opportunity  to  present  its  defense  as  well 
as  to  the  plaintiff  State  to  present  its  case  without  delaying  or  blocking  the  course 
of  justice  by  technical  objections.  (Rhode  Island  vs.  Massachusetts,  14  Peters, 
210,  decided  by  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Taney.) 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  has  been  suggested  as  the  proto- 
type of  an  international  tribunal,  there  would  be  no  need  of  a  treaty  of  arbitra- 
tion or  of  a  special  agreement  in  addition  to  the  Convention  creating  the  court 
and  authorizing  it  to  receive  and  decide  justiciable  disputes  submitted  by  the 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY  121 

contracting  parties.  The  plaintiff  State  could  set  the  court  in  motion  upon  its 
own  initiative,  without  calling  to  its  aid  the  members  of  the  Union,  just  as  each 
member  of  the  American  Union  can  file  its  bill  in  the  Supreme  Court  without  the 
aid,  and  indeed  without  the  knowledge,  of  the  other  States  of  the  American 
judicial  union. 

The  employment  of  physical  force  either  to  hale  a  nation  into  court  or  to 
execute  against  it  the  judgment  of  the  international  tribunal  has  not  been  men- 
tioned. The  sheriff  did  not  antedate  the  judge,  nor  did  he  come  into  being  at  the 
same  time.  He  is  a  later  creation,  if  not  an  afterthought.  He  is  necessary  in  dis- 
putes between  individuals ;  he  is  not  necessary — at  least,  he  is  not  a  part  of  the 
machinery  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  trial  of  disputes  between  States  of  the 
American  judicial  union  and  in  the  execution  of  its  judgments  against  States.  It 
may  be  that  an  international  sheriff  may  prove  to  be  necessary,  but  nations  shy 
at  physical  force,  especially  if  they  understand  that  it  is  to  be  used  against  them. 
The  presence  of  the  sheriff*  armed  with  force,  that  is  to  say,  of  an  international 
police,  would  make  an  agreement  upon  an  international  court  more  difficult,  and 
if  an  international  sheriff  should  prove  to  be  unnecessary  his  requirement  as  a 
prerequisite  to  the  court  would  delay  the  constitution  of  this  much-needed  insti- 
tution. 

If  the  sheriff  is  needed,  or  if  some  form  of  compulsion  is  found  advisable 
in  order  to  procure  the  presence  of  the  defendant  State  before  the  international 
tribunal,  and  to  execute  the  judgment  thereof  when  rendered,  it  is  the  part  of 
wisdom  to  allow  the  experience  of  nations  to  determine  when  and  how  the  force 
shall  be  created  and  under  what  circumstances  and  conditions  it  is  to  be  applied. 
We  should  not  unduly  complicate  a  problem  already  sufficiently  complex  by  in- 
sisting that  the  international  court  shall  be,  in  its  beginning,  more  perfect  than 
is  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  after  a  century  and  more  of  successful 
operation. 

X.  The  creation  of  an  enlightened  public  opinion  in  behalf  of  peaceable  set- 
tlement in  general,  and  in  particular  in  behalf  of  the  foregoing  nine  propositions, 
in  order  that,  if  agreed  to,  they  may  be  put  into  practice  and  become  effective,  in 
response  to  the  appeal  to  that  greatest  of  sanctions,  ''a  decent  respect  to  the 
opinions  of  mankind." 

If  for  physical  force  we  would  substitute  justice,  we  must  create  a  public 
opinion  in  favor  of  justice,  as  we  must  create  a  public  opinion  in  behalf  of  any 
and  ever}'  reform  which  we  hope  to  see  triumph.  The  more  difficult  the  problem, 
the  greater  the  need  that  we  set  about  it,  and  the  sooner  we  begin  the  better  it  will 
be  for  the  cause  which  we  champion.  There  are  many  who  advocate  short-cuts 
to  international  justice,  and  therefore  to  international  peace,  just  as  there  are 
many  who  advocate  short-cuts  to  knowledge ;  but  the  pithy  reply  of  Euclid  to  his 
royal  but  backward  pupil  is  as  true  today  as  it  was  when  uttered  centuries  ago. 


122  AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

that  there  is  no  royal  road  to  learning.  To  change  the  standard  of  conduct,  and 
as  a  preliminary  to  this  to  change  the  standard  of  thought,  is  indeed  a  difficult 
task;  but  if  mankind  is  to  prefer  the  test  of  justice  to  the  test  of  force,  we  must 
educate  mankind  to  a  belief  in  justice.  If  we  succeed,  justice  will  prevail  be- 
tween nations  as  between  men;  if  we  fail,  justice  may  partially  prevail  between 
men,  as  it  largely  does  today,  but  not  between  and  among  the  nations.  The  prob- 
lem before  us  is  therefore  one  of  education  from  a  false  to  a  true  and  an  en- 
nobling standard.  If  public  opinion  can  be  educated  in  one  country,  it  can  be 
educated  in  other  countries,  and  we  can  confidently  look  forward  to  a  public 
opinion  in  all  countries — universal,  international,  and  as  insistent  as  it  is  univer- 
sal and  international:  A  mere  statute,  we  know  by  a  sad  experience,  will  not 
make  men  virtuous,  and  a  mere  treaty — for  a  treaty  is  an  international  statute — 
will  not  make  the  nations  virtuous.  We  have  failed  in  the  one,  and  we  are  doomed 
to  failure  in  the  other  attempt,  for  nations,  composed  of  these  very  men  and 
women,  are  not  to  be  reformed  by  statute  any  more  than  the  men  and  women 
composing  them.  Without  public  opinion  the  statute — national  or  international — 
is  a  dead  letter ;  with  public  opinion  the  statute — national  or  international — is  a 
living  force.  With  public  opinion  all  things  are  possible ;  without  public  opinion 
we  may  hope  to  do  nothing.  Were  Archimedes  living  today,  and  if  he  were  speak- 
ing of  things  international,  he  would  declare  public  opinion  the  lever  that  moves 
the  world. 

In  speaking  of  public  opinion,  Mr.  Root  has  recently  and  impressively  said : 

There  is  but  one  power  on  earth  that  can  preserve  the  law  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  poor,  the  weak,  and  the  humble ;  there  is  but  one  power  on  earth 
.  that  can  preserve  the  law  for  the  maintenance  of  civilization  and  humanity, 
and  that  is  the  power,  the  mighty  power,  of  the  public  opinion  of  mankind. 

Without  it  your  leagues  to  enforce  peace,  your  societies  for  a  world's 
court,  your  peace  conventions,  your  peace  endowments  are  all  powerless,  be- 
cause no  force  moves  in  this  world  until  it  ultimately  has  a  public  opinion 
'behind  it. 

The  thing  that  men  fear  more  than  they  do  the  sheriff  or  the  policeman 
or  the  State's  prison  is  the  condemnation  of  the  community  in  which  they  live. 

The  thing  that  among  nations  is  the  most  potent  force  is  the  universal 
condemnation  of  mankind.  And  even  during  this  terrible  struggle  we  have 
seen  the  nations  appealing  from  day  to  day,  appealing  by  speech  and  by  pen 
and  by  press,  for  the  favorable  judgment  of  mankind,  the  public  opinion  of 
the  world.    That  establishes  standards  of  conduct. 

May  we  not,  on  the  eve  of  an  International  Conference,  say  with  Washington 
on  the  eve  of  the  International  Conference  of  1787 :  "Let  us  raise  a  standard 
to  which  the  wise  and  the  honest  can  repair.    The  event  is  in  the  hands  of  God." 


XIX 

Provision   of   Law   Declaring   the   International   Policy   of   the   United 
States. — Enacted   by   the   Sixty-fourth   Congress^ 

August  29,  1916 

It  is  hereby  declared  to  be  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  adjust  and  settle 
its  international  disputes  through  mediation  or  arbitration,  to  the  end  that  war 
may  be  honorably  avoided.  It  looks  with  apprehension  and  disfavor  upon  a  gen- 
eral increase  of  armament  throughout  the  world,  but  it  realizes  that  no  single 
nation  can  disarm,  and  that  without  a  common  agreement  upon  the  subject  every 
considerable  power  must  maintain  a  relative  standing  in  military  strength. 

'  In  view  of  the  premises,  the  President  is  authorized  and  requested  to  invite, 
at  an  appropriate  time,  not  later  than  the  close  of  the  war  in  Europe,  all  the 
great  Governments  of  the  world  to  send  representatives  to  a  conference  which 
shall  be  charged  with  the  duty  of  formulating  a  plan  for  a  court  of  arbitration  or 
other  tribunal,  to  which  disputed  questions  between  nations  shall  be  referred  for 
adjudication  and  peaceful  settlement,  and  to  consider  the  question  of  disarma- 
ment and  submit  their  recommendation  to  their  respective  Governments  for 
approval.  The  President  is  hereby  authorized  to  appoint  nine  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  who,  in  his  judgment,  shall  be  qualified  for'the  mission  by  eminence 
in  the  law  and  by  devotion  to  the  cause  of  peace,  lo  be  representatives  of  the 
United  States  in  such  a  conference.  The  President  shall  fix  the  compensation 
of  said  representatives,  and  such  secretaries  and  other  employees  as  may  be 
needed.  Two  hundred  thousand  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary, 
is  hereby  appropriated  and  set  aside  and  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  President 
to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  this  paragraph. 


1  Provision  of  the  Act  making  appropriations  for  the  naval  service  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  thirtieth,  nineteen  hundred  and  seventeen,  and  for  other  purposes.  Statutes  at 
Large  of  the  United  States,  vol.  39  (64th  Congress),  p.  618. 


123 


INDEX 

PAGE 

Adams,  John  Quincy.    On  the  independence  of  South  American  Nations 35 

Alliances,  American  Attitude  Toward 

Washington's    Farewell    Address    •  • 1 

Jefferson's    Inaugural    Address,    1801     4 

Message  of  President  Polk,   1845 7 

Address  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  First  Pan  American  Conference,   1889 18 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Root  to  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference.  67 

American  Institute  of  International  Law 

I>eclaration  of  Rights  and    Duties  of  Nations,  1916. 115 

Habana  recommendations  on  international  organization,  1917. .  •  • 106 

Commentary    108 

Arbitration  of  International  Disputes 

Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine  to  First  Pan  American  Conference,  1881 14 

Closing  address  of  Secretary  Blaine,  1890. 19 

Historical  resume  of  American  proposals  and  attitude 47 

Proceedings   at   First  Hague   Conference.     Report  of   American    delegates 56 

Instructions   of   Secretary   Root  to  delegates   to   Second   Hague   Conference,   May 

31,    1907    ..-. 70 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference  on  Permanent  Court. .  86 
Declaration   of    Second    Hague    Conference    on    obligatory   arbitration.      Report   of 

American    delegates    98 

Report  of  American  delegates  on  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice 100 

Recommended  by  American  Institute  of  International  Law   .  • 107 

.Commentary    • 117 

Declaration    in   naval   appropriation   bill,    August   29,    1916 123 

Armaments 

Not  needed  in  America.     Address  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  First  Pan  American 

Conference.    1881 18 

Russian  circular  calling  Hague  Conference  to  consider.     August  12,  1898 43 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference  on 54 

Resolution  of  First  Hague  Conference.   1899 61, 68 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Root  to  American  Delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference.  67 

Resolution  of  Second  Hague  Conference,  1907 99 

Declaration  in  naval  appropriation  bill,  August  29,   1916 123 

Balance  of  Powfr.  Principle  Excluded  from  America 

Message    of    President    Polk,    1845 7 

Address  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  First  Pan  American  Conference,   1889 18 

Blaine,  James  G.,  Secretary  of  State 

Invitation  to  First  Pan   American   Conference,   1881    14 

Address  of  welcome  to  the  Conference,  1889  17 

Closing    Address,    1890 19 

Bourgeois,  Leon.    Address  on  retention  of  Hague  Court  of  Arbitration 118 

Buchanan,  James.     Presidential  message  applying  Monroe  Doctrine  to  Mexico,  1858. .     12 

.Statement  regarding  acquisition  of   Cuba  by  foreign  power,   1848 33 

Butler,  Charles  Henry.     American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

125 


126  .    INDEX 

PAGE 

Calhoun,  Senator.     Statement  regarding  enforcement  of  Monroe  Doctrine 32 

Cass,   Secretary.     Statement  regarding  Monroe   Doctrine   in   war  between   Spain   and 

Mexico,  1858 2>7 

Choate,  Joseph  H.    American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

Clayton,  Secretary.    Statement  regarding  acquisition  of  Cuba  by  foreign  power,  1849. .     ZZ 

Cleveland,  Grover,  President 

Message  regarding  boundary  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela,  1895 21 

Message  favoring  arbitration  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  December  4,   1893 49 

Colonization  of  America  by  Europe.    See  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Congress,  United  States 

Proposals  in,  favoring  arbitration  and  a  tribunal  to  prevent  war 47-49 

Resolution  favoring  immunity  of  private  property  at  sea,  April  28,   1904.... 7Z 

Declaration  in  naval  appropriation  bill  in  favor  of  arbitration,  disarmament  and  an 

international  tribunal,  August  29,  1916 '. 123 

Conquest,  Soirit  of,  not  tolerated  in  Pan  American  Conferences.    Address  of  Secretary 

Blaine,    1889    18 

Contraband  of  War.     Instructions  of   Secretary  Root  to  delegates  to  Second  Hague 

Conference,  May  31,  1907 75 

Contract  Debts,  Forcible  Collection  of 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Root  to  delegates  to  Hague  Conference,  May  31,  1907- ...     69 
Report  of  American  delegates  on  convention  concerning 88 

Council,  Administrative,  of  The  Hague  Court,  organization  of 57 

.To  procure  ratification  and  observance  of  Hague  Conventions.     Recommendation 

of    American    Institute    of    International    Law Ill 

Council  of  Conciliation,  International 

For  non-justiciable  questions.     Recommendation  of  American  Institute  of  Interna- 
tional Law 107 

.Commentary 116 

Court  of  Arbitral  Justice.    See  International  Court. 

Crozier,  Captain  William.    American  delegate  to  First  Hague  Conference 44 

Cuba 

Statement  of  Secretary  Buchanan  regarding  acquisition  of  by  foreign  power,  1848.     ZZ 
Statement   of    Secretary   Qayton    on    same   subject,    1849 ZZ 

Davis,  G.  B.,  Brigadier  General.    American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

Declaration  of  Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations,  adopted  by  American  Institute  of 

International    Law,    1916 115 

Dominican  Republic 

Annexation  of,  by  United  States.    Message  of  President  Grant,  May  31,  1870 13 

Receivership  by  United  States.  Message  of  President  Roosevelt,  February  15,  1905.    24 

Entangling  Alliances 

Jefferson's  Inaugural  Address,  1801 4 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Root  to  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference, 

May    31,    1907 67 

Equality  of  Nations.    Declared  by  American  Institute  of  International  Law. 115 


INDEX                             .  127 

PAGE 

Equality  of  States  of  America 

Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine  to  Pan  American  Conferences,  1881 , 16 

Address  before  Conference,   1889   ' 17 

Speech  of  Secretary  Root  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  1906. 36 

European  Politics.  American  Attitude  Toward 

Washington's   Farewell   Address •  • 1 

Message  of  President  Monroe,  1823   • 5 

Jefferson's    reply   to    Monroe    31 

Message   of    President   Polk,    1845 7 

Declaration  of  American  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference,   1899 54 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Root  to  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference, 

May  31,   1907   67 

Reservation  of  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference 86 

Existence,  Right  of.     Declared  to  belong  to   every  nation  by  American   Institute   of 

International    Law    •  • 115 

Force,  Physical.     Not  advocated  in  international  organization  by  American  Institute  of 

International  Law   . .  •  • 121 

France.     Request  of  United   States  to  withdraw  from  Mexico,   1865 33,35 

.Invitation    of    Chamber    of    Deputies    to    United    States    to    negotiate   treaty  of 

arbitration,    1895 49 

Freedom  of  the  Seas.    See  Immunity  of  Private  Property  at  Sea. 

German.y 

Assurances    from,    regarding   observance    of    Monroe   Dortrine.      Memorandum    of 

Secretary  Hay,  December  16.  1901 22 

Declaration   to   United   States   regarding  allied   operations   against  Venezuela 38 

Government,  Principles  of.      Jefferson's  Inaugural  Address,  1801 4 

Grant,  U.  S.,  President.     Message  extending  Monroe  Doctrine  to  transfer  of  American 

■    territory  to  European   Power,   May  31,   1870 ■• 13 

Great  Britain 

Acceptance  of  Monroe  Doctine  by 32 

Declaration   to   United   States   regarding  allied   operations   against  Venezuela 38 

Memorial  from  members  of  Parliament  in  favor  of  arbitration  treaty  with  United 

States,   1888   _ 48 

Resolution  of  House  of   Commons  on   same   subject,   July  16,   1893 49 

Arbitration  treaty  with,  favored  l:y  Presidents  Cleveland  and  McKinley 49 

Haeana  Recommendations  of  American  Institute  of  International  Law,  1917 106 

.Commentary     108 

Hague  Conferences 

Russian  call  for  First  Conference,  August  12,   1898 43 

Instructions  to  American  delegates : 

Secretary  Hay,  April   18,   1899 44 

Secretary  Root,  May  31,  1907 63 

Reports  of  American  delegates 

July  31,  1899— First  Conference   53 

Second    Conference 76 

Rules    of    Second    Hague    Conference     , • .  79 

Recommendations  for  Third  Conference 103,  106,  108 

Hague    Convention    concerning    limitation    of    force    in    collection    of    contract    debts 

Report  of  American  delegates 88 


128  INDEX 


Hague  Convention  for  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes.     Report  of  Ameri- 
can delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference 60 

Reservation   of    Monroe   Doctrine    in    signature   and    ratification   by    United    States 

of    First   Hague   Convention 32,  58,  60,  63  (text) 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference 82 

Reservation  of  Monroe  Doctrine  at  Second  Hague  Conference 86 

Hague  Conventions 

Committee  to  procure  ratification  and  observance  of,   recommended  by  American 
Institute  of   International   Law    •  • 106,  111 

Hague  Court  of  Ajrbitration.    See  International  Court. 

Hague  Declaration  on  Obligatory  Arbitration,  1907 98 


Hague   Recommendation    for   Court  of   Arbitral   Justice,    1907.     Report   of    American 

delegates     •  • 100 

Hale,  Chandler.     Secretary,  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

Hay,  John,  Secretary  of  State 

Instructions  to  American  delegates  to  Hague  Conference,  April  18,  1899 44 

Memorandum  to  German  Embassy  regarding  Monroe  Doctrine  and  German  measures 

against   Venezuela.     December    16,    1901 22 

Reply  to  Germany,  Italy  and  Great  Britain  on  same  subject 38 

Hill,  D.wid  Jayne.     American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

HoLLS,  F.  W.     Secretary,  American  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference 53 

.Contributed  plan  for  special  mediation  to  First  Hague  Conference 56 

Immunity  of  Private  Property  at  Sea 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Hay  to  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference,  April  18,  1899.  47 

Proceedings  of  First  Hague  Conference.     Report  of  American  delegates .. 59 

American  proposal  at  First  Hague  Conference 74 

Instructions   of   Secretary   Root  to  delegates   to    Second   Hague   Conference,   May 

31,    1907 73 

Independence.     Declared  to  belong  to  every  nation  by   Am.erican   Institute  of   Inter- 
national  Law 115 

Inquiry  Commissions,  International 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference 56 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference 83 

Habana  recommendation  of  American  Institute  of  International  Law 107, 116 

International  Bureau  at  The  Hague.      Intermediary  between   disputing  powers   in 

offer  of   arbitration • 86, 1 14 

International  Conference 

Equality  of  States  at.  Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine  to  First  Pan  American  Con- 
ference,  1881    16 

.Address  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  conference,  1889 17 

Agreement  not  compulsion,  the  object  of  Hague  Conferences.     Instructions  of  Mr. 

Root,  May  31,  1907   65 

Periodic  conferences  suggested  by  Mr.   Root 66 

International  Court 

Instructions  of  Secretary  Hay  to  delegates  to  Hague  Conference 46 

Historical   resume   of   American   proposals 47 

Plan  for  an  international  tribunal  proposed  by  Secretary  Hay  to  Hague  Conference  51 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference 57 


INDEX  129 

PAGE 

International  Court — Continued. 

Instructions   of    Secretary   Root  to  delegates   to   Second   Hague    Conference,   May 

31,  1907 71 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference  on  Permanent  Court..  86 

.Report  on  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice 100 

Recommended  by  American  Institute  of  International  Law 107 

.Commentary     •  • 119 

Declaration  in  naval  appropriation  bill,  August  29,  1916 • 123 

International  Law 

Declaration   of   Rights   and   Duties   of   Nations,   adopted  by  American   Institute   of 

International  Law,   1916   •  • .   115 

Monroe  Doctrine  not  a  principle  of,  but  a  unilateral  American  doctrine.     Address 

of   Elihu  Root 33 

To  be  applied  by  International  Prize  Court 94 

To  be  applied  by  Court  of  Arbitral  Justice 101 

To  govern  relations  of  American  nations.     Address  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  first 

Pan  American  Conference,  1889 18 

To  be  developed  by  Hague  Court • 59,  71 

Understanding  on  fundamental  principles  of,   recommended  by  American   Institute 

of    International   Law 107 

International  Organization 

Habana  recommendations  of  American  Institute  of  International  Law,  1917 106 

.Commentary 108 

International  Rules  for  war  at  sea.     Code  of,  urged  by  Secretary  Root  for  adoption 

by  Second  Hague  Conference 75 

Interparliamentary  Union.     Suggested  calling  Second  Hague  Conference 76 

Italy.    Declaration  to  United  States  regarding  allied  operations  against  Venezuela 38 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  President 

Foreign  policy  of.     Inaugural  address.     March  4,  1801 4 

Reply  to  Monroe  regarding  European  intermeddling  in  American  affairs 31 

Judicial  Union  of  nations  recommended  by  American  Institute  of  International  Law...   107 
.Commentary 119 

Latin  America 

Attitude  of  United  States  toward,  under  Monroe  Doctrine 

Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine  to  First  Pan  American  Conference,  1881 14 

Message  of  President  Roosevelt  stating  that  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  guarantee 

any  state   against  misconduct,    1901    22 

Message   of   President   Roosevelt  regarding   intervention   of   United   States   in 

America  in  cases  of  chronic  wrong-doing,  1904 23 

Message   of    President  Roosevelt  on    responsibilities   of    United    States   toward 
European   nations   which   have  unpaid   claims    against   Latin   American 

countries,  February  15,  1905    24 

United  States  claims  no  position  of  superiority  in  America.     Message  of  President 

Roosevelt,   December  3,   1906 36 

Equality  of  American  States.    Address  of  Secretary  Root  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  1906..     36 

Excluded  from  signing  First  Hague  Convention 62 

Adhesion  of,  to  first  Hague  Convention  and  admission  to  Second  Conference 72,  78 

Low,  Seth.     American  delegate  to  First  Hague  Conference 44 

McKinley,   President.     Message   in    favor   of    arbitration   treaty   with    Great    Britain, 

March  4,   1897    •  • 49 

Mahan,  Captain  A.  T.    American  delegate  to  First  Hague  Conference • 44 


130  INDEX 


Massachusetts 

Resolutions  favoring  amicable  adjustment  of  international  disputes,  1832,  1837 47 

Resolution  favoring  establishment  of  an  international  tribunal,  1844 47 

Mediation  of  Non- Justiciable  Disputes.     Recommended  by  American  Institute  of  In- 
ternational Law 107 

.Commentary 117 

Mediation  under  Hague  Convention  for  pacific  settlement  of  international  disputes 38 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  First  Hague  Conference •  • 56 

Report  of  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference 83 

Mexico 

American  attitude  toward  internal  affairs  of  and  foreign  interference  with 

Message  of  President  Polk  regarding  Yucatan,  1849 9 

Message  of  President  Buchanan,   1858 12 

Allied  operations  in.     Statement  of  Secretary  Seward,  1861 38 

Withdrawal  of  France  from.     Request  of  United  States,  1865 33 

Monroe  Doctrine.     Message  of  President  Monroe,  December  5,  1823 5 

Blaine,  Secretary  of  State.     United  States  not  protector  of  Latin  America.     Invita- 
tion to  First  Pan  American  Conference,  1881 14 

Buchanan,  President  and  Secretary  of  State.    Application  of  Doctrine,  1848,  1858..  12,  33 

Calhoun,  Senator,     Statement  in  1848 32 

Cass,  Secretary.     Statement  in  war  between  Spain  and  Mexico,  1858 ■.  Zl 

Clayton,   Secretary.     Statement  in   1849 ZZ 

Cleveland,     President.      Message    regarding   the   boundary    dispute   between    Great 

Britain  and  Venezuela,  1895   21 

European  Governments,  Recognition  by   •  • 31 

Grant,   President.     Doctrine  extended  to  cover  transfers  of  territory.     Message  of 

1870    13 

Hague  Conventions,  reservation  of  Doctrine  in 32,  58,  60,  63  (text)  67,  86 

Hay,    Secretary.      Memorandum    to    German    Embassy    regarding    Venezuela    De- 
cember 16,   1901 22 

.Reply  to  Germany,  Great  Britain  and  Italy  in  regard  to  Venezuela 38 

Jefferson's  reply  to  Monroe,  1823 31 

Polk,  President.    Reaffirmation  of  Doctrine.     Message  of  1845 7 

.Message  regarding  appeal  of  Yucatan  to  European  Powers,  1849 9 

Roosevelt,  President: 

Doctrine  does  not  guarantee  States  against  punishment  for  misconduct.      Mes- 
sage of  December  3,  1901 22 

Intervention  of  United  States  in  America  for  chronic  wrong-doing.     Message 

of   December   6,    1904 2Z 

Obligations  of  United  States  under  Doctrine.     Dominican  Receivership  Message 

of   February   15,    1905 24 

United  States  claims  no  position  of  superiority  in  America.     Message  of  De- 
cember  3,    1906 36 

Root.  Elihu,  Secretary  of  State 

Statement  at  Rio  de  Janeiro.    1906 7^6 

Instructions    to    American    delegates    to    Second    Hague    Conference    regarding 

reservation    of    •  • 67 

The  real  Monroe  Doctrine.    Address  of  April  22,  1914 29 

Seward,  Secretary: 

Statement  regarding  allied  operations  in  Mexico,   1861 38 

Statement  in  1865 32,  35 

Webster,  Daniel.     Statement  in  House  of  Representatives 31 

Newell,  Stanford.     American  delegate  to  First  Hague  Conference 44 

New  York  Bar  Association.    Plan  for  an  international  tribunal,  adopted  April,  1896..  51 

Pan  American  Conferences 

Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine,  1881 •  •  •  14 


INDEX  131 

PAGE 

Pan  American  Conferences — Continued. 

Addresses  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  first  Conference.  1889-1890 17, 19 

Periodic   meetings    of    66 

Political  Relations  with  Foreign  Nations 

Washington's  Farewell  Address   1 

Jefferson's  Inaugural  Address,  1801    4 

Monroe's  message,   1823    •  • 5 

Messages  of  President  Polk,  1845  and  1848 7,9 

Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine  to  First  Pan  American  Conference,  1881 14 

Addresses  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  Conference,  1889-1890 •  • 17, 19 

Reservations  of  United  States  to  Hague  conventions,  concerning.  .32,  58,  60,  63  (text)  86 
Instructions  of  Secretary  Root  to  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference        67 

Polk,  James  K.,  President.     Foreign  Policy  of-     Annual  Message,  1845 7 

Special  Message  to  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  April  29,  1848 9 

Porter,  Horace.    American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

Prize  Court,  International.     Report  of  American  delegates  to   Second  Hague  Con- 
ference      91 

Public  Opinion  as  sanction  for  peaceful  settlement  of  international  disputes.     Recom- 
mendation of  American  Institute  of  International  Law •  • 107 

.Commentary     121 

Renault,  Louis.     Extract  from  report  on  jurisdiction  of  International  Prize  Court 95 

Rights  and  Duties  of  Nations.     Declaration  of  American  Institute   of  International 

Law    115 

Roosevelt,  President 

Message  stating  that  Monroe  Doctrine  does  not  guarantee  any  state  against  mis- 
conduct,  December   16,   1901    •  • 22 

Message  regarding  intervention   of   United   States  in  America  in   cases   of  chronic 

wrong-doing,  December  6,   1904   23 

Message  regarding  obligations  of  United  States  under  Monroe  Doctrine  (Dominican 

Receivership   Message) ,   February   15,   1905 24 

United  States  claims  no  superiority  in  America.     Message  of  December  3,  1906....     36 

Proposed   Second   Hague   Conference 63,  76 

Root,  Eli Hu,  Secretary  of  State 

Address  on  ''The  Real  Monroe  Doctrine,"  April  22,  1914 29 

Equality  of  American  nations.     Speech  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  1906-  • 36 

Instructions  to  American  delegates  to  Second  Hague  Conference,  May  31,  1907 63 

Statement  regarding  sanction  of  public  opinion  for  enforcement  of  law 122 

Rose,  Uriah  M.     American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

Russia 

Call  of,  to  First  Hague  Conference,  August  12,  1898 43 

Program  of  Second  Hague  Conference 77,  64 

Santo  Domingo.    See  Dominican  Republic. 

Scott,  James  Brown.    American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference.  • 78 

.Commentary   on   the    Recommendations    of    Habana    concerning   International    Or- 
ganization        108 

Secret  Understanding  not  permitted  at  Pan  American  Conferences.    Address  of  Secre- 
tary  Blaine,    1889 18 

Senate,  United  States 

Proposals  in,  favoring  arbitration  and  a  tribunal  to  prevent  war 47,  49 

Reservation   by,   of   Monroe   Doctrine,    in    ratifying   Hague   Convention    for   pacific 

settlement  of  international  disputes 32,  58,  60,  63  (text) 


132  INDEX     • 

PAGE 

Seward,  Secretary 

Request  to  France  to  withdraw  from  Mexico,  1865 33,  35 

Statement  regarding  allied  operations  in  Mexico,  1861 38 

Sherman,  Senator.     Concurrent  resolution  in  favor  of  arbitration,  1890...... 48-49 

Sperry,  Rear  Admiral  C.  S,     American  delegate  to  Second  Hague  Conference 78 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.    Prototype  of  an  international  court  of  justice..  120 

Swiss  Federal  Council.    Plan  of  arbitration  presented  to  United  States  in  1883 48 

Territorial  Acquisitions  by  European  nations  in  America.    See  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Territorial  Rights.     Declared  to  belong  to  every  nation  by  American  Institute  of  In- 
ternational Law 115 

Venezuela 

Boundary  dispute  with  Great  Britain.     Message  of  President  Cleveland,  1895 21 

Allied  measures  against,  in  1901.     Memorandum  of  Secretary  Hay  to  German  Em^ 

bassy  regarding.     December   16,   1901 22 

Declaration  of  Germany,  Great  Britain  and  Italy  to  United  States  and  Secretary 

Hay's    reply    38 

Vermont.     Resolution  favoring  establishment  of  an  international  tribunal,  1852 47 

War,  Prevention  of 

Invitation  of  Secretary  Blaine  to  First  Pan  American  Conference,  1881 14 

.Addresses  of  Secretary  Blaine  before  conference,  1889-90 17,  19 

Historical  resume  of  American  proposals  for 47 

Declaration  in  naval  appropriation  bill  in  favor  of  means  to  avoid,  August  29,  1916. .   123 
See  Armaments;  Hague  Conferences  and  Conventions;  International  Court. 

Washington,  George 

Foreign  policy  of.     Farewell  Address,  September  17,  1796 1 

Statement  of,  on  eve  of  Federal  Convention,   1787 122 

Webster,  Daniel.     Statement  regarding  Monroe  Doctrine 31 

White,  Andrew  D.    American  delegate  to  First  Hague  Conference 44 

Yucatan.     Message  of  President  Polk  regarding  appeal  to  European  Powers  for  pro- 
tection against  Indians,   1849    9 


14  DAY  USE 

RETUKN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


uAV     ^  iQBft 

i 

flHVf — u-4i)u»* 

^^^^^^''V 

^  .-.v^^* 

1 

LD  2lA-45m-9,'67 
(H50678l0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


